BHAGWAN DASS Vs. MEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging his removal from one-third space under a tree opposite to Odean Cinema. Connaught Place, New Delhi.

(2.) This case presents an ideal example of how civic body can discriminate between three citizens similarly placed and bow one of the three discriminated against has to run from pillar to post to protect his means of livelihood. The conduct of the civic body as is revealed in this petition by no means can be described as bonafide.

(3.) Some of Sileint facts in brief are as under- The circular space under the tree is shared between 3 parties. There are two others who are selling betels, pan masala, cigrettes etc. while the petitioner was originally occupying the space and was selling therefrom "Allu-ki-Tikkia" without any licence or contract. His occupation was sought to be regularised by the respondent some time in 1964 whereby he was granted a licence to sell "Allu Ki Tikkia" from that one-third apace. This licence was cancelled in the year 1965 notwithstanding the fact that he had deposited Tehbazari charges @ Rs. 25. p.m.. It may be pointed out that such cancellation was effected only in the case of the petitioner to carry on the licenced trade under the said tree but no explanation is forthcoming from the respondents as to why the two others were not given the same or similar treatment. The petitioner challenged his removal and moved this court. His writ petition was dismissed whereafter he went to Supreme Court. In 1968, the petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In 1970, however, the space was again allotted by NDMC to the petitioner for the same trade i.e. for selling "Allu Ki Tikkia". It was noted in 1970 that since the petitioner had been sitting at the said space for over 20 years, he was granted licence for one year at a licence fee of Rs. 385.00 p.m. instead of Tehbazari @ Rs. 25.00 p.m. which was being charged earlier. This licence was renewed in 1971, but in 1972, the authorities cancelled the licence on the ground that higher offers for the same space had been received which means that the sole object for removal of the petitioner was profiteering. As a consequence of this, the petitioner was once again forced into litigation and filed a writ petition where the civic authorities took a stand contrary to the reasons for cancellation contained in its resolution i.e. the sale of eatables can not be permitted from that site. The petitioner lost that writ petition also and had to go to Supreme Court where the Supreme Court entertained the plea of the petitioner and directed that his case should be considered sympathetically because he had been there for such a long time.