Delhi High Court
Dastkari Haat Samiti vs Delhi Tourism And Transporation ... on 28 November, 2019
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28th November, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 3777/2019
DASTKARI HAAT SAMITI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pallav Shukla and Mr. Aayush
Chandra, Advs.
versus
DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORATION DEVEOPMENT
CORPORATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv. for
respondent no. 1
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr. Srivats Kaushal, Adv. for
respondent no. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 28.11.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred
with the following prayers:
"a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction to the Respondents to follow the mandate of
the Circular dated 3rd May 1994 as referred in paragraph 10
at pages 6 to 11 of this PIL, in letter and spirit.
b. Pass an order directing the committee as set out in the
Circular dated 3rd May 1994 to reconvene and take charge of
Dilli Haat, function regularly and formally with proper
quorum and with all discussion recorded and displayed on
website for full transparency.
c. Pass an order directing the committee as set out in the
Circular dated 3rd May 1994 to correct the irregularities in
this PIL to ensure that Dilli Haat is managed in accordance
with the Circular dated 3rd May 1994 and the guidelines
issued by this Hon'ble Court.
d. Pass an order directing committee as set out in the
Circular to conduct enquiry into the irregularities alleged in
this PIL and to make a report to this Hon'ble Court.
e. Pass an order quashing the Dilli Haat Operation and
Management Rules, 2006 as referred in paragraph 13 at
pages 14 to 15 of the PIL;
f. Pass an order prohibiting e-auction of any stall at
Dilli Haat;
g. Pass an order restraining the Respondents from
permitting the sale of any of the items mentioned in
paragraph 35 of the PIL or any other
items similar thereto;
h. Pass an order prohibiting Respondent No.l from
constructing additional stalls.
i. Pass an order prohibiting Respondent No.l from
allocating stalls.
j. Pass an order directing the Respondents to
meticulously follow the
recommended guidelines set out in paragraph 92 of this PIL,
in addition to the Circular dated 3 May 1994.
k. Pass an interim order in terms of prayers (b), (d), (f),
(g) and (i)."
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very object
for which the Dilli Haat was set up in Delhi is not being properly met by
the respondents. The original objective of setting up of Dilli Haat,
approximately 25 years ago, was to provide a place to craft persons from
handicrafts and handlooms sector to market their products directly to the
consumers, eliminating the role of middlemen. But now, Dilli Haat has
been converted into a big bazaar consisting of small shops. The licencees
of Dilli Haat are presently selling varieties of products including Chinese
goods which are neither produced by the handicraft artisans nor
considered to be handricraft/handloom products. Hence, this petition has
been preferred by the petitioner, seeking directions from this court to the
respondents to follow their circular dated 3rd May, 1994 and earlier
position of Dilli Haat may be restored by the respondents.
3. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ
petition as this is not a "Public Interest Litigation" at all. In fact, this is a
"Publicity Interest Litigation". A situation, which was prevailing
approximately 25 years ago, is bound to be changed in accordance with
the present scenario at the behest of the respondents, especially for Dilli
Haat. It is left open to the wisdom of the respondents to decide as to what
should be the nature of Dilli Haat, to whom licences are to be given in
Dilli Haat, what type of goods are to be displayed/sold and for what
period the licences are to be given etc. It is a policy decision to be taken
by the respondents who are managing Dilli Haat. Policies are bound to
be changed and altered with the efflux of time as per current scenario and
requirements. Thus, change is inevitable.
4. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to issue a writ of
mandamus to respondents as prayed in this writ petition.
5. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2019
r.bararia
