MOHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the Order dated 11.5.2007 whereby the Directorate of Estates, Government of India has revoked the licence of the petitioner in respect of Quadrangle No.IV, Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi.

(2.) The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that the action of respondent No.2 of terminating the licence of the petitioner in respect of Quadrangle No.IV, Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has also stated that respondent No.2 has not taken into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner in his reply dated 14.10.2004 to the show cause notice dated 29.9.2004 and had passed an unjustified and baseless order. The petitioner has further stated that respondent No.2 also did not consider that the licence of the shop and the quadrangle was a composite licence and, therefore, the licence of said quadrangle No.IV could not have been revoked alone, which licence was a part of the composite licence. It is also stated that respondent No.2 also did not appreciate that there was no evidence that the petitioner had obstructed the access of the CPWD to the quadrangle for carrying out the maintenance and also the fact that the CPWD had independent access to the quadrangle through its own gate under their own lock and key. It is also the case of the petitioner that no violation or contravention on the part of the petitioner in breach of the terms of the licence was ever complained of by the respondent and, therefore, without there being any breach on the part of the petitioner, the licence of the petitioner in respect of quadrangle could not have been terminated. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the demise of his father on 31.1.1985, the respondent no.1, i.e., Government of India, had regularized the licence in favour of the petitioner under a single Licence Deed for the shop and the quadrangle vide Licence Deed dated 25.11.1985 and execution of such a Licence Deed in favour of the petitioner would clearly show that the quadrangle was always treated as an integral part of the composite licence deed for the shop and the quadrangle. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Union Cabinet of the Central Government, on 20.10.1989, had taken a decision to confer ownership rights on leasehold basis to all the authorized allottees of Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi along with seven other similar markets of Delhi and accordingly the petitioner applied for ownership of Shop No.27 and the quadrangle. It is also the case of the petitioner that the request of the petitioner for the grant of ownership rights of Quadrangle No.IV, Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi was rejected on the premise that the said Quadrangle No.IV is a common area for circulation/ventilation and such an area is being required for maintenance purposes. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had agreed to provide access to the said Quadrangle No.IV through his Shop No.207 as and when CPWD would require for the purposes of maintenance. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had separately challenged the show cause notice dated 29.9.2004 in WP(C) No.17550/2004. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) vide LPA No.393/2006 so as to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition was dismissed. In the background of the aforesaid facts of this case, the petitioner has approached this Court to seek quashing of the order dated 11.5.2007 passed by the Directorate of Estates whereby the said licence has been revoked.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2, the stand taken is that the father of the petitioner was granted a licence in respect of Quadrangle No.IV with the stipulation that the said licence was purely temporary which could be revoked by the respondent at any time by giving thirty days notice without even assigning any reason. The respondent has also submitted that the licencee cannot question the said decision of the Government to cancel the licence, and even in the case of a wrongful termination of the licence, the only remedy available is to claim damages. The respondent has also submitted that the petitioner has made unauthorized encroachment by converting the Quadrangle No.IV into a fullfledged shopping market and has blocked the two passages leading to the said Quadrangle No.IV and as such the licence of the petitioner with regard to Quadrangle No.IV was rightly terminated. It is also the case of the respondent that the said Quadrangle No.IV consists of common service area where drainage pipelines are laid down for carrying waste water etc. from the shop area to the main municipality and by raising construction on the Quadrangle No.IV the petitioner has blocked the said approach to the drainage pipelines, making it impossible for the CPWD to carry out day-to-day maintenance of the drainage system. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner had blocked the ventilators of other shops that open into the said Quadrangle No.IV. It is also the case of the respondent that the action of revocation of licence of the respondent cannot be called arbitrary, baseless and unjustified. It is also the stand of the respondent that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, being WP(C) No.17550/2004, the petitioner sought directions for the grant of ownership rights in respect of shop and Quadrangle No.IV, Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi and for withdrawal of the show cause notice dated 20.9.2004. Both the said reliefs were declined by the learned Single Judge by dismissing the said petition filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 6.9.2005. It is also the stand of the respondent that during the pendency of the present petition, the LPA No. 393/2006 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Hon ble Division Bench vide order dated 21.9.2007. With the aforesaid defence raised in the counter affidavit, the respondent has justified its stand of terminating the licence of the petitioner in respect of the said Quadrangle No.IV, Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi.