AJAY KUMAR Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order of sealing dated 28.9.1995 in respect of shop No.110, Mohan Singh Place, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi with a further direction to transfer the shop in the name of the petitioner to be occupied by the petitioner on payment of normal licence fee. The petitioner has also claimed the reliefs against fresh allotment of shop in question.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that the petitioner entered into a partnership with one Sh.Puran Chand on 6.9.88 to carry on business of tailoring in the shop in question which was dissolved on 13.7.89 when Sh.Puran Chand executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner. On 22.1.92 the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.2 NDMC for transferring the allotment of the shop in the name of the petitioner along with the requisite documents. Since the transfer did not take place the petitioner enquired about the same and came to know that there were payment of dues outstanding against the shop of Rs.3 lacs. The petitioner made a representation on 27.12.93 regarding the outstanding dues. The petitioner deposited approximately Rs.2.25 lacs between November, 1989 to July, 1994 with respondents 2 to 4. Respondents 2 to 4, however, sealed the shop on 28.9.95. Petitioner made representations against the same and stated that he was willing to deposit the enhanced licence fee by making an initial payment of Rs.1 lac and balance in instalments. It is further stated that the Chairman of NDMC directed his subordinates to restore the electricity and remove the seal subject to payment of 50% of the amount and balance 50% in instalments.

(3.) On 4.1.96 the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1 lac but neither was electricity restored nor was the possession of the shop handed over to the petitioner. On the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner received a letter dated 8.3.1996 in the name of previous allottee Sh.Puran Chand in which Rs.2,84,477/- was shown as outstanding licence fee. On 14.3.1996 the petitioner deposited Rs.1,50,000/- and on 18.3.96 the petitioner made a request tor restoration of physical possession of the shop and stated that he was willing to make the payment of the balance amount. The petitioner further deposited Rs.1 lac on 25.5.96 and it is stated that the Chairman, NOMC issued a direction to the Directorate of Estate to restore the electricity and handed over physical possession of the shop to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have deposited the balance amount on 2.9.1996 but since the possession was not handed over, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Prior to filing of the present writ petition an OSD in the Home Ministry is also stated to have issued a DO letter for restoration of the shop.