( 1 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the All India Institute of Medical Sciences ( in short, AIIMS) requires any licence for running a medical store.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein was having an outlet for selling drugs/medicines to general public within the premises of AIIMS. AIIMS granted licence to the appellant to run the aforesaid outlet. The AHMS withdrew this licence and by communication dated July, 1997 asked the appellant to vacate the premises forthwith. As the appellant did not vacate the premises, action was initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and an eviction order was passed. Against the eviction order the appellant preferred TO an appeal which was dismissed by the Addl District Judge vide order dated 18/07/2001.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved, the appellant herein filed a writ petition No. 4800/2001. The said writ petition was disposed of on 17/08/2001. Upon his filing the requisite undertaking to vacate the premises, time to vacate the premises was extended to 30/11/2001. Such grant of time was subject to granting licence by All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The order dated 17/08/2000 reads as under:

"rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up today for hearing. The principle plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in the absence of a decision by the Cabinet Secretariat Litigation Cell and as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. vs.- collector of Central Excise JT 1991 (4) S. C. 158, the Litigation between public sector undertakings should not be resorted to without the examination of the matter and the recommendation of a High powered Committee. Learned Counsel for the respondents in reply to this plea contended that as per the judgment reported in Steel Authority of india Ltd.-vs.- Life Insurance Corporation of india. AIR 1997 SC 2590 it has been held that the high Powered Committee was not supposed to look into the matters such as eviction of a company or a public sector undertaking under the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) act, 1971 which also happens to bo the subject matter of the present writ petition. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the pendency of the reference before the Cabinet secretariat which has deferred the decision in its last meeting held on 28th of June, 2001 can be of no relevance at least in respect of matters relating to eviction from public premises. The learned counsel lor the respondents has also submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner that the premises in question shall let out to a private chemist is unfounded as the respondent No. 2- AHMS intends to open its own hospital pharmacy in the premises in question. I have also gone through the impugned order of Additional District Judge and I do not find any infirmity or error, requiring interference of this Court under. Article 226 of the constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter made a prayer that even if the respondent No. 2 - AHMS -intends to open its own hospital pharmacy, it would require considerable time before the appropriate licence may be obtained for the said. purpose. Mr. Gupta, the Learned Counsel for the respondents states that respondent No. 2 expects to secure the relevant licence within a period of three months from today. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted extension for a period of three months from today, subject to its giving an undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 30th of November, 2001. The requisite undertaking shall be filed within a week from today in any case on or before 26th of november, 2001 and the respondents will file an affidavit in this Court stating as to whether the appropriate licences and permissions have been secured by them. In case needful is not done within the stipulated period, affidavit shall also state the