SURINDER SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Delhi Development Authority was set-up for providing for development of Delhi. Whether this object has been achieved or not is debatable but the facts disclosed by this case do show the development of chaos inefficiency and bureaucratic delays in the said Authority. Of course, the charges which are levelled against the officers of this Authority are much more serious but I need not make any comment on the same. The facts of this case will disclose the inefficient and callous attitude of the officers of the Authority with no regard either for the welfare of the citizens or for the interest of the Authority itself.

(2.) The facts in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner had migrated to Delhi 1947 as a refugee. He started his leyelihood. Like a number of other fefugees, by building a shop No. 91 at Naya 3azar, Delhi. He paid rerit to Dbifai in Municipal Corporation regularly from 1948 till 1967.

(3.) With a view to re-settle the refugees dwelling on footpaths and "pavements, the Government of India appointed a commission known as Gadgil Commission. It, inter alia, gave its recommendations to the effect that refugees like the petitioner who had been carrying on their professions on the pavements and footpaths before 15/8/1950 should be removed only when they are allotted permanent places to carry on their profession.