SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA (SH ) Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the W.P.(C) 1755/2006Page 1of 12 orders dated 13.11.2001 and 6.11.2003 passed by the learned Estate Officer and the order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge.

(2.) The grievance raised by the Petitioner in the present petition is that the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are clearly erroneous as both the courts below failed to consider the basic issue raised by the Petitioner that the Petitioner could not carry on the business of running the meat shop as he was not granted the license by the MCD on account of the fact that the size of the shop did not conform to the size requirements as were laid down by the MCD for running a meat shop. The Petitioner has also submitted that the Delhi Vidyut Board and the CPWD failed to provide any basic amenities in the Vasant Vihar Shopping complex where the shop in question was located. The Petitioner also submitted that he had applied for the grant of license with the municipal authorities on 14.09.1998, but vide their letter dated 21.09.1999 the said request of the Petitioner was rejected by the Respondent-MCD and it is only then the Petitioner came to know that in order to run a meat shop the minimum area as it was then required was 85 sq. ft., whereas the shop allotted to the Petitioner by the Directorate of Estates was only 61 sq. ft. The Petitioner has further stated that he made lot of efforts through various representations made by him to impress upon the concerned authorities to allot him some alternate shop which could conform to the size requirement as laid down by the MCD, but all the said efforts made by the Petitioner did not yield any result. It is further stated that because of the absence of basic amenities in the said shopping complex, allotters of various shops had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing WPC No. 2195/1999 and vide order dated 01.11.2000 this Court by way of an interim order directed that the allotters will pay only 50% of the license fee from the date of allotment up to end February, 2000 and from 01.03.2000 they were directed to pay the entire amount of license fee in terms of their license deeds. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner could not pay the said amount of license fee as the case of the Petitioner was exceptional as he could not operate the meat shop in the absence of a municipal license. The Petitioner has also stated that despite the fact that he could not conduct any business in the said allotted shop, but still the Respondent No. 2 cancelled his allotment and issued a show cause notice under the provisions of Public Premises Act to seek his eviction from the said shop. The Petitioner had appeared before the Estate Officer to contest the said eviction proceedings, but the learned Estate Officer had passed the eviction order dated 13.11.2001 without taking into consideration the pleas raised by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner then approached the learned Addl. District Judge by way of filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act and vide order dated 05.10.2005 the said appeal filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed by the learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved by the said two orders the Petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Phoolka, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-MCD very fairly submits that the Petitioner is now eligible for the allotment of the said shop which was earlier allotted by the Union of India in favour of the Petitioner and could not be used by the Petitioner because the required size of the said shop did not conform to the laid down requirements and as now the rules for running a meat shop have been modified and as per the amended rules, the Petitioner can now be allowed to run the said meat shop. Counsel also submits that the Petitioner was given the license for a period of three years and since the Petitioner could not obtain the license to run the said meat shop because of the size problem, therefore, in fact, he could not put to use the said shop for running the meat business.