Delhi High Court
Munna Khan vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 4 December, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.12.2017
+ W.P.(C) 6640/2016 and CM Nos. 27181/2016 and 14498/2017
MUNNA KHAN ..... Petitioner
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Naresh Thanai, Ms Khushboo Singh and
Ms Bharti.
For the Respondents : Mr Gautam Narayan and Mr R. A. Iyer for
GNCTD.
Mr Prem Mishra, LA, DTIDC.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The original petitioner (since deceased) has filed the present
petition, inter alia, impugning a communication dated 18.07.2016
(hereafter „the impugned communication‟), whereby the petitioner has
been called upon to vacate the PCO Booth at Platform - D, Inter State Bus
Terminal, Anand Vihar, Delhi (hereafter „the premises‟) on or before
31.07.2016.
2. The petitioner has also prayed that directions be issued to the
respondents to frame a comprehensive policy for grant of licenses for
shops, kiosks, booths etc. to physically challenged persons.
3. The original petitioner (Late Munna Khan) was allotted a PCO/STD
Booth at ISBT by a letter dated 12.01.1999. The said allotment was made
since he was physically disabled to the extent of 90%. The license was
renewed from time to time and was last renewed up to 21.03.2016.
Admittedly, the term of the license for the premises has expired. After the
license term had expired, Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd. (hereafter „DTIDC‟) issued the impugned communication
calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. The original petitioner
filed the present petition in the aforesaid context challenging the decision
of DTIDC not to renew the license of the premises in his favour.
4. It is the petitioner‟s case that he is entitled to retain the petitioner‟s
license on concessional license fee since its premises were allotted to him
as a part of the welfare scheme for ensuring self-employment and
livelihood for persons with disabilities. The petitioner also alleged that
respondents had not framed any scheme for allotment of premises to
persons with disability in term of Section 43 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter „the 1995 Act‟).
5. The petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in Meena Saini v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors:
LPA 777/2011, decided on 09.11.2011 to contend that it was incumbent
upon respondents to frame a scheme for preferential allotment of premises
to persons with disabilities.
6. The original petitioner (Late Munna Khan) expired on 24.03.2017
and his legal heirs were brought on record.
7. In the meanwhile, in June 2016, DTIDC issued a Notice Inviting
Tenders (hereafter „NIT‟) for allotment of kiosks/booths/spaces at Anand
Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan. Pursuant to the aforesaid NIT, bids were
received for allotment of the premises in question and the same were
thereafter allotted to the successful bidder. However, DTIDC has been
unable to handover possession of the said premises because by an order
dated 02.08.2016, the respondents were interdicted from taking any
coercive action against the petitioner. It was further directed that he would
not be disturbed from the premises allotted to him at ISBT, Anand Vihar,
Delhi.
8. Concededly, the premises were allotted on a license basis for a
limited term which expired on 31.03.2016. Thus, plainly the original
petitioner did not have any right to continue in occupation of the said
premises.
9. The petitioner had founded this case on the obligation of respondents
to make a scheme for preferential allotment of land to persons with
disabilities in terms of Section 43 of the 1995 Act (which is pari materia to
Section 37 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016). The
petitioner had rested his claim on the basis that if such scheme was framed,
the petitioner would be entitled to a preferential allotment of the premises.
10. It is at once clear that the petitioner‟s case is not founded on terra
firma. First of all, the petitioner has no vested right to retain the premises
beyond the term of the license. Secondly, the respondents have framed a
policy for preferential allotment of premises to persons with disabilities
and 5% of the shops have been reserved for being allotted to "persons with
disabilities". Thus, while the original petitioner was fully entitled to
compete with other persons with disability for allotment of the premises for
a further term but he could claim any right to retain the premises in
preference to other persons with disability.
11. After the demise of the petitioner, there is no plausible reason why
any preferential treatment be accorded to his legal heirs, who are not
persons with disabilities.
12. The question whether the policy framed by DTIDC for allotting 5%
of the shops on preferential basis is flawed or not compliant with the
provisions of the 1995 Act or the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 has been considered by this court in Seema Tiwari & Ors v.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors: W.P.(C) 6335/2016, decided on
04.12.2017. And for the reasons stated in the said decision, the petitioner‟s
challenge to the DTIDC‟s policy as contained in OM dated 01.08.2016 is
rejected.
13. In view of the above, the petition is unmerited and is, accordingly,
dismissed. All pending applications are also stands disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
DECEMBER 04, 2017
RK
