IMPORTANT POINT
The appellants cannot claim concessions given to preferential allottees of stall holders of Panchkuian Road in Palika Bazar about low licence fee and relaxation in trade zoning restrictions on the basis of concept of equality before law as enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

N.P. Singh, J.-These appeals along with a writ petition have been filed on behalf of the different licensees of the shops in the shopping complex known as Palika Bazar which was built by the respondent, New Delhi Municipal Committee (hereinafter referred to as the NDMC ) in the year 1976. The whole complex is centrally air-conditioned. It appears that by a resolution dated 29.11.1977, NDMC decided to allot 98 shops to shopkeepers of Panchkkuian Road because the space occupied by them at the said Panchkuian Road was required for widening of the said road. Again on 27.5.1978 the Delhi Administration directed the NDMC to allot shops to 98 stall-holders of Panchkuian Road on the conditions agreed. A plan of the said marketing complex was prepared and published showing 98 shops which had been reserved for the shopkeepers of Panchkuian Road on preferential basis. Tenders were invited for allotment of other 177 shops divided into four zones and further classified in seven groups for proper identification. In the advertisement it was stated that reserved shops were not being put to tender and preference for allotment of a particular shop in a group will be given to the highest tenderers. It was also stated that only those tenders shall be considered which were above the reserved rate. One of the terms of allotment being term No. 9 was as follows :

"only those trades such as mentioned in the trade zoning plan shall be permitted to be run in the shop. A copy of the details of the trade zoning is appended to this document as appendix A ."

The aforesaid zones were demarcated on the plan of the shopping complex which had been prepared by the NDMC. The persons submitting tenders were required to state the trade which they proposed to run in the shops. In the application forms it had been clearly mentioned that "only such trades as mentioned in the trade zoning plan shall be permitted." The applicant was also required to give an undertaking that he had carefully read the memorandum of information and the terms and conditions of the allotment and that he had agreed to abide by the same. The shops were to be given on licence for a period of five years and thereafter the licence was renewable subject to increase in the licence fee by 10 per cent and on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the NDMC. Different reserved prices were fixed for different shops. The appellants in different appeals including the writ petitioner filed their tenders and indicated the trade which they wanted to run in the shops to be allotted to them. There is no dispute that the applicants while submitting the tenders, offered the licence fee at a much higher rate than what was mentioned as the reserved rate of licence fee in respect of different shops. Thereafter letters of allotment were issued indicating the trade which such licensee could carry in the shops which had been allotted to them. In other words, the applicants whose tenders were accepted on the rates offered by them were not only required to pay the licence fee offered by them and accepted by the NDMC, but they undertook to occupy the shops in different trading zones and to carry on the trades which were specified to be carried on in the zones concerned.

2. So far the Panchkuian Road stall-holders were concerned, allotment of shops were made to them in the zones reserved for them, but they were not subjected to zoning restrictions, the only restriction which was imposed on them was that they had to carry on only the permissible trade specified in Appendix A to the terms and conditions of the allotment. They were to pay the licence fee also at a different rate which was admittedly at a lower rate than the licence fee which had been offered and accepted from the applicants who were allotted shops out of 177 shops referred to above. It is the case of the NDMC that special consideration in respect of licence fee as well as the zoning restriction in respect of Panchkuian stall-holders was ma