SEEMA GUPTA Vs. NDMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Sanjiv Kumar, respondent No. 3 herein has filed a suit for injunction against Ms. Seema Gupta and Ms. Mamta Gupta, the petitioners herein, New Delhi Municipal Council, respondent No. 1 and Drug controller, respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 had filed an application for interim injunction for restraining the petitioners herein from using temporary allotted shop Nos. 13 and 14 near gate No. 2, Safdarjung hospital, New Delhi as a chemist shop as the licence trade permitted by respondent No. 1 in the said shops was STD and Photostat. Learned commercial Civil Judge has granted interim injunction vide order dated 31st January, 2009 restraining the petitioners from using the shops as a chemist shop. The said order has been confirmed in the first appeal by learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 8th May, 2009.

(2.) IT is admitted that initially the petitioners herein were allotted two shops in the subway with the stipulation that they shall carry on trade of photostat and STD. The said trades were specified in the tender for which the bids were invited and given by the petitioners along with other parties. The bid amount was relatable to the trade activity permitted and allowed in the shops. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were carrying on trade of Photostat and STD till 2008 and were initially paying licence fee of Rs. 12,991/- and Rs. 16,943/ -. By 2008, the licence fee had been enhanced to Rs. 23,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- approximately for the same trade. Respondent No. 3, on the other hand, had submitted tender for a chemist shop, which was allotted to him in 1999 on a licence fee of rs. 2,12,159/- plus Rs. 10,103/- towards maintenance. Respondent No. 3 also made a deposit of Rs. 8,88,224 towards security deposit. There is a substantial difference between the licence fee payable by the petitioners as per their tender bids made 1999-2000, which were accepted, and the licence fee which respondent No. 3 was paying for the chemist shop as per his tender bid. The difference still continues in spite of enhancement of the licence fee in view of clubbing of shops and permission that was earlier granted by NDMC to the petitioner to carry on general trade. In 2008 the petitioner after enhancement was paying about Rs. 1 lac per month as licence fee.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner No. 1 in 2002 wanted to change her trade and start a chemist shop. In 2002, the respondent No. 3 herein had filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner No. 1, one Mr. Abhay kumar, NDMC and the Drug Controller. In the said suit, respondent No. 3 had prayed for injunction restraining petitioner No. 1 herein from permitting change of the trade from Photostat to chemist/drug shop. The respondent No. 3 also made a prayer that the drug controller should not issue a licence for running of a chemist or a drug shop in favour of the petitioner No. 1 herein. Mr. Man Singh, Assistant Director, NDMC made a statement on 7th May, 2003, that NDMC had rejected the request for change of trade and no change in trade would be allowed in future. On the basis of the statement made by the parties, learned Civil Judge was pleased to decree the suit. The operative portion of the judgment reads:-