The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between license and leasehold rights, the principles of public trust, revenue maximization, and fair competition in the disposal of public property, and the prevention of backdoor entry into public premises to safeguard public interest.

1. The petitions (i) impugn the refusal of the respondent North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NrDMC) to grant lease hold rights to the petitioners with respect to the shops No. 2 and 1 respectively in MCD Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi licensed to the petitioners; (ii) seek to restrain the respondent NrDMC from taking any coercive action for the eviction/dispossession of the petitioner from the said shops till leasehold rights therein are granted to the petitioners; and, (iii) seek mandamus to the respondent NrDMC to grant leasehold rights with respect to the shops licensed to each of the petitioners.

2. The petitions were entertained though interim relief of stay of proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (PP Act) initiated against the petitioners was refused. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent NrDMC and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners. The counsels for the petitioners were heard and judgment reserved on 13th July, 2015. Thereafter the petitioners moved applications informing that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the PP Act had resulted in order of eviction being passed against the petitioners. Vide order dated 21st January, 2016 it was clarified that the order in the eviction proceedings shall be subject to the outcome of these petitions. Subsequently vide order dated 11th February, 2016 on applications of the respondent NrDMC it was clarified that the appeals under Section 9 of the PP Act preferred by the petitioners before the District Judge are to go on and the order thereunder would be subject to the orders in these petitions.

3. The counsels for the petitioners argued with reference to WP(C) No.2347/2015, stating that the facts of WP(C) No.3146/2015 are similar. As such I also proceed to decide the petitions on the basis on facts of WP(C) No.2347/2015.

4. The petition was filed pleading – (a) that the petitioner was granted licence to the shop in pursuance to a bid made by the petitioner in response to a notice dated 26th March, 1997 inviting tenders; (b) that the said licence was for a period of five years; (c) that the market in which the shop is situated was constructed in the year 1976 by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) being the predecessor in interest of the respondent NrDMC; (d) that the market initially comprised of 65 shops all of which were given on licence basis; (e) however the MCD vide Resolution No. 982 dated 5th March, 1979 decided to grant 99 years leasehold rights to the licensees of shops in the said market and accordingly licences of approximately 45 shops in the market were converted into leasehold; (f) that inspite of the said resolution of 1979, the MCD in the year 1997 allotted shop to the petitioner on licence basis; (g) that the licence of the petitioner was renewed for a further period of five years; (h) that the petitioner vide application dated 1st March, 2007 applied for conversion of the licence into leasehold; (i) MCD vide letter dated 2nd April, 2007 called upon the petitioner to make payment of conversion charges of Rs.30,28,410/- and which was paid by the petitioner on 29th August, 2007; (j) MCD however did not grant leasehold rights compelling the petitioner to upon coming to an end in October, 2007 of the second term of five years of the licence, applied for renewal of the licence; (k) however the licence was not renewed and on the contrary MCD vide letter dated 13th August, 2009 cancelled its earlier letter dated 2nd April, 2007; (l) however the amount of Rs.30,28,541/- received from the petitioner was not refunded and it was merely stated that the same would be adjusted against the outstanding dues of licence fee/overstay; (m) that the MCD vide letter dated 3rd February, 2009 called upon the petitioner to vacate the premises; (n) that the respondent NrDMC is discriminating against the petitioner in not converting the licence of the petitioner into leasehold thoug