SUDESH KUMAR ARORA Vs. D M SAPOLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have willfully violated the orders passed by this Court on 3.8.2004 in W.P.(C)No.3005/2003 and on 31.10.2006 in Cont. Cas(C)No.574/2006.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was running a shop at Kashmiri Gate. In view of the DMRC project, the shop of the petitioner was removed and an alternate shop was made available to him being shop no.29 at ISBT, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi. The petitioner, however, sought a direction from this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3005/2003 that he should be treated as similarly situated evictees of `Dhaba Block'. The writ petition was allowed and the following order was passed on 3.8.2004. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 03.08.2004 Present : Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the respondents. WP (C) 3005/2003 The petitioner is a physically challenged person suffering from 45% disability and was displaced from his allotted shop in view of the DMRC project. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is being treated differently from the other persons who have been displaced as a consequence of the DMRC project and allotted shops. The only defence taken in the counter-affidavit is that a policy was framed but only for evictees of dhaba block of Kashmere Gate. It is stated that petitioner is in a different block and could not be covered by the policy. I fail to appreciate the distinction since once the petitioner is evicted from the same area under the DMRC project, there will apparently be no distinction between the evictees. I am thus of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be treated at par with the other evictees of ISBT who were rehabilitated. All these evictions took place as a consequence of the DMRC project. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that respondents should work out the similar parameters to apply the same to the case of the petitioner as applied to other evictees of DMRC project from ISBT where the petitioner was originally located. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. CM 5113/2003 Dismissed. August 03, 2004 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J

(3.) As the order dated 3.8.2004 passed in W.P.(C)No.3005/2003 was not complied with, the petitioner filed contempt case no.574/2006 before this Court. While disposing of the contempt petition on 31.10.2006 a direction was issued to the respondents to ensure that a suitable alternative shop is handed over to the petitioner within eight weeks subject to availability.