RAJIV KHURANA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 31st July, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant holding that there is no ground to interfere with the decision of the respondent -Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

(2.) Mr. Kirti Uppal, counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the appeal has drawn our attention to the order dated 30th November, 2006 to consider whether it could be appropriate to issue a licence as per policies of Municipal Corporation of Delhi to the appellant in respect of an alternative site for same or some other activity. Relying on the same, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent should be allowed to continue with the aforesaid licence or alternative site for cycle/scooter stand should have been given to the appellant as he is an ex-Air Force personnel. It is also submitted that the appellant is entitled to continue with the aforesaid licence as he is an Ex-serviceman and is entitled to certain benefits provided by the MCD.

(3.) In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, we have also perused the records, which indicate that the appellant has filed a suit CS(OS) No.205/1995 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Delhi seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Delhi Development Authority and Municipal Corporation of Delhi from disturbing the petitioner's right to run the cycle and scooter parking stand at the said location. An injunction application filed by the appellant was however, dismissed vide order dated 28th July, 1995 by the Civil Judge. In the said order, it was recorded by the Civil Judge, Delhi that the appellant was only a licencee, which was granted to him in 1975 subject to payment of Rs.25/- per month. It was also held that there is nothing on record to show that the licence was renewed from time to time. Records also indicate that the appellant had earlier filed another suit, which was withdrawn on 27th April, 1995 without liberty to file a fresh suit. As to whether or not the second suit is maintainable would be another issue which could be effectively decided by the trial court when the same is taken up for consideration. Against dismissal of the aforesaid injunction application, an appeal was filed, which also stands dismissed. It is stated that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed and pending.