Delhi High Court
Bacchu Singh vs Santosh Kumar & Ors. on 8 October, 2018
#120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 08.10.2018.
CONT. CAS (C) 779/2018
BACCHU SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur and Mr. Kanwal Deep Bhath, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rizwan and Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocates for respondent Nos.1
and 2.
Ms. Puja Kalra, Advocate for respondent No. 3/NDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present contempt petition instituted on behalf of the
petitioner/contemnor under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
essentially seeks a direction to punish the respondents for non-compliance of
the order dated 9th January, 2015, passed by this Court in writ petition being
W.P.(C) No.192/2015, titled as "Bacchu Singh vs. Commissioner of
Industries & Ors."(hereinafter referred to as the 'said order').
2. The relevant portion of the said order dated 9th January, 2015, is
extracted hereinbelow, for the sake of felicity:
"The prayers made by the petitioner to be permitted to
run the business from the said property cannot be granted as,
admittedly, the said business cannot be run from the non
conforming area. Insofar as, the petitioner's complaint
regarding recommencement of other similar business is
concerned, it is directed that the respondents shall
examine the same and take necessary action in accordance
with law within a period of eight weeks from today."
3. A perusal of the said order reflects that, this Court had rejected the
petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking permission to run his
business, on account of the circumstance that, the same was being run in a
non-confirming area. However, in view of the petitioner's complaint,
regarding re-commencement of other similar business, it was directed that
the respondents shall examine the same and take necessary action, in
accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said
order.
4. It is the petitioner's submission that, despite passage of more than
three years and nine months, the respondents have not examined the issue, in
relation to the re-commencement of similar businesses.
5. It is an admitted position that, the present petition has been instituted,
after a passage of over three years and nine months, from the date on which,
the W.P.(C) No. 192/2015, was disposed of, vide the said order dated 9th
January, 2015.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that, he
had instituted another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.9122/2018, praying as
follows:-
"A. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus and of like nature
to take the necessary action in accordance with the law,
respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to run his
business from the above said property i.e. B-4/3, Model Town-
I, Delhi-09, as being done by others."
7. The said W.P.(C) No. 9122/2018, came to be dismissed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court on 31st August, 2018, whilst observing as
follows:-
"3. The petitioner has filed a petition being W.P.(C)
192/2015 seeking similar relief. The said petition was
dismissed by an order dated 09.01.2015 for the reason that
there was no dispute that the petitioner's shop is located is a
non-conforming area and, therefore, cannot be used for non-
conforming industries.
4. The petitioner claims that there are other units operating
in the area against whom no such action has been taken and
therefore, the petitioner should also be placed in the same
position. This contention is unmerited merely because action
has not been taken against other units that are operating
illegally does not entitle the petitioner to operate unlawfully
(See: Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat
Mal Jain: 1997(1) SCC 35).
5. Insofar as that other units operating from the same
locality is concerned, this Court had by an order dated
09.01.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 192/2015 directed the
respondents to examine the same and take necessary action in
accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from that
date. The petitioner states that the said order has not been
complied with. Be that as it may, the relief as sought for by the
petitioner regarding permission to recommence his business
cannot be granted for the reasons as stated above and in the
order dated 09.01.2015.
6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that, he is
aggrieved by the circumstance that, other units are operating from the subject
area against whom, no action, in accordance with law, has been taken by the
respondents.
9. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be
countenanced, in view of the circumstance that, the same was rejected as
being unmerited by this Court on 31st August, 2018, in the second round of
proceedings between the parties, as aforementioned. Even otherwise, the
petition is bereft of any cogent particulars in support of the allegation.
10. In Gursharan Singh & Ors. vs. NDMC & Ors., reported as [1996 (2)
SCC 459], the Hon'ble Supreme Court whilst enunciating that, the concept
of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive
concept, which cannot be enforced in a negative manner, observed as
follows:-
"Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within
the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the
High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If
such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to
continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal
order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim
based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by
the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been
denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this
process there has been a discrimination."
11. In this behalf, it is trite to state that, there can be no negative equality.
In the event, the petitioner is unable to discharge the burden of proving his
claim to be just and legal, the judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate
the illegalities. Therefore, neither is there any violation of this Court's order
dated 9th January, 2015, on the part of the respondents nor can the same be
characterized as wilfull or deliberate. Resultantly, the present contempt
petition is dehors any merit.
12. Even otherwise, the present petition is barred by limitation, in view of
the mandate of the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
13. The petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 08, 2018
RS
