RAJESH KUMAR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER DMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order, passed by the respondent transferring the allotment of booth No.395-396 to booth No.737. Petitioner had been selected as a Concessionaire for selling milk and milk products from milk booth No.1217 located at Karam Pura, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. As per the petitioner this was a milk booth working only two hours a day. The agreement was initially for a period of one year, renewable on mutual basis. It is stated that the petitioner's allotment from the booth at Karam Pura, Moti Nagar was changed to 395-396 at Khanna Market with one Sh.Nitin Bhanot, who had requested for a change. Petitioner was also permitted to sell milk for the full day as also milk products. Petitioner claims to have spent substantial money on renovation of milk booth and because of his efforts the sale at the milk booth picked up.

(2.) It is claimed that on 17.1.2002 all of a sudden, officers of respondent slapped an office order dated 15.1.2002 bearing No.7-3(818)/199-V, asking the petitioner to vacate the booth forthwith. No reason was disclosed to the petitioner. Respondent had threatened the petitioner that he would be forcibly evicted. It is alleged that one Mr.Zha, who was operating Depot No.2567-68 had been allotted Depot Nn.395-96. The said Mr.Zha is being favoured by selected officers. Petitioner's concessionairship was transferred to Depot No.737 at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition relying on the order passed by this Court in a connected CW.No.1452-2001 titled Sh.Bishamber Dayal Gupta Vs.General Manager, DMS. Show cause notice was issued in the writ petition and vide order dated 3.3.2002 status quo was directed to be maintained. Petitioner vide order dated 18.1.2002 was permitted to implead the party to whom the depot at Patel Nagar was sought to be allotted. CM.1557/2002, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been moved by the General Manager, DMS, pointing out that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and seeking reference of disputes to arbitration. Reply to the said application has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.S.Gulati, who was also the petitioner's counsel in CW.No.l452-200l, has urged the same grounds in support of the writ petition. It is urged that the action of the respondent is a malafide one. The agreement between the parties does not provide for transfer of the booth from the allottee to another. The said action, beyond the terms of the contract, being a malafide act, is assailable in writ jurisdiction. It is also urged that there was no dispute between the parties.