Anil Kumar vs Executive Directors, Tauras ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 6971 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    %                          Date of decision: 26th November, 2018

+    LPA 649/2018, CM No. 48564/2018
     ANIL KUMAR                                   ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. J.R. Rana, Mr. Gaurav Sehrawat
                                and Mr. Abhinav, Advs.
               versus

     EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS, TAURAS SHOPPING ARCADE &
     ORS                                 ..... Respondents
                  Through:
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

    V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM No. 48564/2018 (for delay) This is an application filed by the appellant seeking

condonation of 11 days delay in filing the present appeal. For the

reasons stated in the application, the delay of 11 days in filing the

appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

LPA 649/2018

1. The present Intra Court appeal has been filed by the

appellant challenging the order dated September 18, 2018 passed by

the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 7338/2016, whereby the

learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the

appellant herein.

2. The facts as noted from the record are that the appellant is

an Ex-serviceman and retired from his services with the Indian

Army in December 2007. In February 2008, the appellant applied

for allotment of a shop in Taurus Shopping Acrade. Pursuant to his

application, he was allotted a shop (Shop No.7) in the said Arcade.

On April 01, 2013, the appellant and the respondent No.1 entered

into the 'Leave License Agreement' whereby the appellant was

granted the license to use the shop in question for a period of six

months. The said period expired on September 30, 2013.

3. On January 13, 2014, the respondent No.1 issued a letter to

the appellant asking the appellant to vacate the premises as the

contract, Leave and License Agreement dated April 01, 2013 had

expired on September 30, 2013. The appellant vacated the premises

in question on July 31, 2014. It was the case of the appellant that

thereafter, he became aware that the said shops were being re-

allotted and, therefore, on February 23, 2015, he sent a letter

seeking allotment of the shop to be used for selling readymade

garments. The said request was rejected by a communication dated

August 31, 2015.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the

Defence Shopping Complexes (Maintenance & Administration)

Rules, 2006. It was the case of the appellant that in terms of the

said Rules, 60% of the Shops in the shopping complexes are

required to be reserved for (i) War-Widows / Widows of Defence

Personnel killed while on duty; (ii) displaced soldiers; (iii) Ex-

servicemen; and (iv) spouses / widows of Ex-servicemen.

5. It was the case of the appellant that out of 18 shops, only

two shops have been allotted to the persons belonging to the

aforesaid categories. The issue arose before the learned Single

Judge whether the shops are covered by the Rules of 2006 as relied

upon by the appellant. There is a finding of the learned Single

Judge in the negative. This aspect has been conceded by the learned

counsel for the appellant during arguments. His only submission is

by relying upon a Policy dated November 21, 1998 to contend that

there is a reservation in the allotment of regimental shops, that too

100%.

6. On a specific query that the Policy relied upon by him does

not stipulate 100% reservation for War-Widows and Ex-servicemen

and is there any other instruction stipulating so, the learned counsel

for the appellant could not point out anything in that regard. In the

absence of any Policy reserving 100% regimental shops in favour of

War-Widows / Ex-servicemen, this plea of the learned counsel for

the appellant is without merit.

7. That apart, we note even, the policy of November 21, 1998

only observes that keeping in view the general unemployment

situation in the country, self-employment of Ex-servicemen and

War-Widows is being encouraged by Directorate of Re-settlement,

instructions have therefore, been issued by the Head Quarters for

allotment of regimental shops to War-Widows and Ex-servicemen.

This stipulation does not specify any quota to be reserved for War-

Widows and Ex-servicemen. Further, there is no dispute that out of

18 shops, two shops have been allotted to Ex-servicemen / War-

Widows.

8. If that be so, we do not find any merit in the appeal, the

same dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 26, 2018/aky