PARVESH KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction againstthe respondent for restoration of the supply of electricity to shop No.77. PalikaBazar, Connaught Plac" New Delhi, which is stated to have been withheld due tonon-payment of some dues.

(2.) It is alleged that the petitioner was allotted the shop in question in the year1979 as a licencee on payment of licence fee. In 1980, the respondent initiatedproceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupatns) Act,1971; (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") alleging that the licence stood cancelledand the petitioner was also unauthorised occupant. The Estate Officer through hisorder dated 23/04/1984 held the cancellation of licence to be illegal because ofnon service of notice. Thus the petitioner was to be an unauthorised occupant andliable to pay only licence fee. It is further alleged that there has been a generaldispute between the shopkeepers of Palika Bazar and the Respondent Committee,as regards the rate of licence fee. The petitioner among others filed a writ petitionin this Court, which was dismissed on 16/12/1985, whereafter SpecialLeave Petition was also preferred in the Supreme Court. While rejecting the SpecialLeave Petition, it was directed that the respondents will give time to the petitionerto pay up the licence fee, calculated on the basis of agreed rate, in four equal bimonthly instalments commencing from 1/02/1986. It is also pleaded that thesaid order of the Supreme Court was duly complied with and the petitioner has beenpaying the licence fee regularly, in terms of the licence deed. But abruptly on 2 5/06/1993 the respondent disconnected the electric supply to the shop premises. Oninquiry the petitioner learnt that it was due to non-payment of some dues. This acthas been challenged in this writ petition as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to terms ofagreement.

(3.) On 5/07/1993, notice to show cause was issued to the respondents. Onmiscellaneous application, an interim order was passed on 8/07/1993 directingthe respondents to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner at the shop inquestion. It is not disputed that by virtue of the said order the electric supply isavailable to the shop in question.