Back
1996 Supreme(Del) 618
High Court Of Delhi
P.S.GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent
Decided On : 08/01/1996
The High Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that authorities act bona fide and within the limits of their powers, and to afford justice to individuals when there is an abuse or misuse of power.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 3 - LICENCE - CANCELLATION - MALA FIDE - ARBITRARINESS - NON-APPLICATION OF MIND - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - POWER OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenges the validity of notices issued by the Estate Department of the New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) for cancellation of his license and re-entry upon forfeiture of license in respect of Stall No. 12-A, Janpath, New Delhi. The petitioner was allotted the stall in lieu of an earlier allotment at R.K. Ashram Marg. Subsequently, the NDMC proposed to construct three mini stalls at the site and required the petitioner to hand over the allotted site. The petitioner vacated the site and was allotted Stall No. 12-A after construction. However, the area of Stall No. 12-B was increased from 140 sq. ft. to 279 sq. ft., and the areas of Stall No. 12-A and Stall No. 12-C were reduced to 68 sq. ft. each. The petitioner complained against the allotment of Stall No. 12-B to the All India Rural Women Upliftment Association (AIRWUA), and a criminal case was registered against NDMC officials. The Lt. Governor observed that the allotment of the stall to the petitioner was a "colourable transaction." The NDMC issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner for cancellation of his license w.e.f. 28.4.1985, and later issued a notice of re-entry upon cancellation of the license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notices were issued in bad faith and actuated by improper motives, as they were issued shortly after the petitioner had filed a complaint against senior officials of the NDMC and a criminal case was registered against them. The court also found that the NDMC had not produced the license deed to substantiate its allegation that the petitioner's construction of a wooden loft in the stall constituted a breach of the license conditions.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned notices were issued in bad faith and actuated by improper motives? 2. Whether the NDMC had the authority to cancel the petitioner's license and take possession of the stall?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned notices were issued in bad faith and actuated by improper motives, as they were issued shortly after the petitioner had filed a complaint against senior officials of the NDMC and a criminal case was registered against them. The court relied on the principle that a power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise. 2. The court held that the NDMC did not have the authority to cancel the petitioner's license and take possession of the stall, as the petitioner had not breached any of the terms of the license deed.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notices and directed the NDMC to forbear from giving effect to them.
( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the validity of the notice of re-entry upon cancellation of licence w. e. f. 28. 4. 1985, issued by the Estate Department, dated 22. 1. 1996 purporting to be on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The said notice required petitioner to vacate the Stall No. 12-A, Janpath within ten days from the date of its receipt and to pay damages at the market rate w. e. f. 28. 4. 1985. He also challenges the validity of an earlier notice dated 22. 12. 1995 issued by the Estate Department to the petitioner to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled w. e. f. 28. 4. 1985.
( 2 ) IT is undisputed that there was a space 6 x 4 in area in between Stall No. 12 and 13 at Janpath known as PIAO area (hereinafter called the PIAO ). In 1977, the PIAO was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of his earlier allotment of space No. 83 at R. K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi (Annexure A ). This allotment was confirmed vide letter dated 23. 2. 1979 (Annexure B) on payment of monthly licence fee Rs. 15. 00 per sq. ft. by the petitioner. On 2. 2. 1984, the respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to the petitioner containing a proposal to construct 3 mini stalls at the site allotted to the petitioner. It required petitioner to hand over the allotted site to the respondent for construction of 3 mini stalls out of which one stall of about 140 sq. ft. in area was assured to be allotted to him. The petitioner vacated the site for the proposed construction. Thereafter, three stalls namely stall Nos. 12. A, 12. B and 12. C were constructed by the respondent. Area of stall No. 12. B was increased from 140 sq. ft. to 279 sq. ft. and correspondingly area of the stall No. 12. A allotted to the petitioner and the area of the third stall bearing No. 12. C was reduced to 68 sq. ft. each. Stall No. 12. B was allotted to the All India Rural Women Upliftment Association (for short the airwua ). On the petitioner s complaint against the allotment of the Stall No. 12. B, the Lt. Governor directed the respondent to submit all relevant papers regarding allotment of the said Stall. The petitioner also took up the matter with the CBI as a result whereof a criminal case under Sections 120-B/ 420/468/471, Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1 ) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against Sh. Baleshwar Rai, Administrator N. D. M. C. Shri Sanjay Saxena, Director of Estate, Sh. L. R. Bakhri, Assistant Director (Estate), Smt. Prem Devi and Smt. Sarojini Devi. When the matter was placed before the Lt. Governor, he observed that the allotment of PIAO to the petitioner was a "colourable transaction". Thereafter, on 22. 12. 1995, the respondent issued the impugned notice (Annexure H) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled w. e. f. 28. 4. 1985. The petitioner submitted his representation against the show cause notice (Annexure 1 ). Rejecting the petitioner s representation, the respondent terminated the petitioner s licence w. e. f. 28. 4. 1985 and directed him to vacate the Stall No. 12. A within 10 days from the receipt of the communication (Annexure J ). The petitioner is in possession of the said stall.
( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the petitioner s case is that the PIAO was meant to be used as a stall/shop and was in fact allotted to the petitioner for running the trade in readymade garments. After construction of the mini stalls, the Stall No. 12-A was allotted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, AIRWUA, a bogus organisation of Smt. Prem Devi and Smt. Sarojini Devi, in collusion with some senior officials of the N. D. M. C. , got the stall No. 12. B allotted in its favour. The area of stall No. 12. B was arbitrarily increased from 140 sq. ft. to 279 sq. ft. and correspondingly the area of the petitioner s stall No. 12. A and the area of stall No. 12. C was reduced to68sq. ft. and the petitioner was coerced to accept the allotment of 68 sq. ft. stall, which
