SARDAR SINGH Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner vends chhole kulche and squals at a site outside the gate of Hindustan Times, Conriaught Circus New Delhi. He claims that he has been carrying on this' trade at the same site since 1956. All the squatters within the area of New Delhi Municipal Committee formed themselves into the New Delhi Rehri Association in 1953 in order to press their demands for grant of licences and other facilities to the members of the Association. It is alleged that after certain discussions had taken place between the office bearers of the respondent Committee and the Association, the President of the Association sent a letter dated 5th January. 1956 to the Health Officer of the Committee confirming the agreement which had been mooted at the meeting which was that the members of the Association should form themselves into a Co-operative Society for the manufacture of edibles and build trolleys of specific designs and then licences would be issued to them if they agreed to stick to the places allotted to them. After the Health Officer had addressed a letter dated 23rd March, 1956 on those lines, a Co-operative Society was formed called the New Delhi Rehri Owners Co operative Society Limited. This Society was duly got registered and it is claimed that a substantial amount of Rs. 17.000.00 was contributed by the members for the construction of trolleys. Beofore, however, the licences were granted Shri Satish Chander, the President, was transferred and the Vice-President, resigned. The new Offlice-bearers took up a different and unsympathetic attitude. However, l14th May 1963 Shri Gajraj Singh, the new President of the Committee, made an annoucement that all squatters and stall-holders who had been squatting or holding stalls within the area of the Municipal Committee since 1957 would be granted licences Alist was prepared of all such squatters which was duly verified and the petitioner's name appeared therein. On 20th December 1963 the respondent Committee passed a resolution for the grant of licences to the squatters/stall-holders. The main terms of this resolution are reproduced in paragraph 15 of the petition. Temporary tehbazari permits were to be issued to the verified squatters and hawkers on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is alleged that in July 1964 the respondent Committee sought to impose a condition on the tea and other stall-holders who had been granted licences that they should remove their stalls every day after sunset and re-establish them after sunrise. Various stall-holders challenged the aforesaid condition as unreasonable by way of writ petitions and civil suits. Thereupon the respondent Committee got annoyed and by way of a retaliatory measure stopped accepting any licence fee from any squater or stall-holder. Ultimately on the assurances given on behalf of the respondent Committee the stall-holders withdrew their cases. The respondent Committee then called upon various squatter and stall holders to submit declarations to the effect that they had paid tehbazari fee up to 30th June 1965 and they had been allotted altemative accommodation in lieu of the sites previously occupied by them and, therefore, they had ceased to squat on the previous sites. The petitioner submitted the requisite declaration upon which the respondent Committee accepted a sum of Rs. 375.00 as licence fee up to 30th June 1965. It however, while allotting alternative sites to a large number of squatters in Ramakrishna Puram, did not allot any such site to the petitioner. It is said that the action of the respondent Committee which it purported to have taken under section 173 of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter called the Act) of with-holding permission in respect of the petitioner squatting on the site where he has been squatting since 1956, is illegal, arbitrary and in excess of the powers conferred by the statute.

(2.) The respondent Committee filed an affidavit dated 19th Novemeber 1965 of Shri R. S. Rai, officiating Secretary in reply. It was stated therein that the tehbazari permission was given to the petitioner and could be withdrawn at any time and that was clearly mentioned in the resolution of the respondent Committee dated 20th December, 1963. It was further said that as the petitioner was not carrying out the conditions of the permission which was granted to him and was creating insanitary conditions hazardous to the health of the citizens, it was decided to cancel his permission and he was directed to remove his wares. It was also asserted that the site in question was a part of road-berm of public street and the petitioner's trade caused obstruction and interference with the use of the road. The temporary permission having been withdrawn and not renewed the petitioner was a tresspasser. In paragraph 16 of Mr. Rai's affidavit it was stated that-the respondent Committee did not allot any alternative site in Ramakrishna Puram but it was the Director of Estates, Ministry of Works & Housing, Government of India, who allotted platforms to some squatters/hawkers.

(3.) The writ petition came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of J. S. Bedi ,ind Shamsher Bahadur JJ. on 13th December, 1965. They recorded the following order on that day :-