IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasized that unauthorized occupation of public land for business purposes cannot be allowed, and the principle of legitimate expectation does not apply to general letters to look into grievances. It also highlighted the legal principle that equality cannot be enforced in a negative manner and that illegal benefits extended to others cannot be claimed by those not lawfully entitled to them.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral) - The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 5th April, 2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8694/2017 by which the order dated 05th September, 2007 passed by respondent no.1/Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) was upheld. By its order dated 05th September, 2007, respondent no.1 directed removal of all unlawful encroachments/encroachers in New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, which included the appellants.

2. As per the case canvassed on behalf of appellants, they are engaged in the business of trading of fruits and vegetables in A Block, Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi since long. They are small traders more commonly known as "Mashakhores". They claim to be operating from the parking area of the Subzi Mandi and running their business from the spaces occupied by them varying from 20 sq. feet to 30 sq. feet. They purchase small quantity of different varieties of fruits and vegetables and sell the same to small shopkeepers, Rehdiwalas and consumers.

3. It is submitted that suddenly on 07th September, 2017, the appellants were shown an order dated 05th September, 2007 issued by respondent no.1/APMC whereby they were directed to remove themselves and their belongings from the spaces occupied by them, which led to filing of writ petition on their behalf, being W.P.(C) No. 8694/2017. Upon dismissal of their writ petition, the present appeal has been filed.

4. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that at the backside of the main subzi mandi, parking spaces have been illegally turned into sheds by respondent no.1/APMC and the spaces have been allotted to various influential traders who are paying some fee/rent to the APMC. It is submitted that the appellants are also ready to pay the fee whatever may be reasonably fixed by the APMC. It is contended that the respondents cannot follow the policy of "pick and choose". It is prayed that the appellants may be allowed to continue their business from the small spaces occupied by them in the parking area.

5. Attention of this Court has been drawn to brochure dated 15th October, 1987 issued by the APMC, Azadpur to contend that the Azadpur Subzi Market was established with a view to rehabilitate large sections of retailers/hawkers who had been operating from certain areas of the market complex from a pretty long time. Reliance is also placed upon the letter dated 24th July, 1994 written by a Member of Parliament wherein the representation of the association of the appellants was directed to be considered and for doing the needful. Similarly, reliance is placed upon the letter dated 08th April, 1997 written by the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister, wherein it was stated that a delegation of New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi had requested that they be granted permission to sell fruits and vegetables in A Block Parking. Thus, by way of the said letter addressed to the Secretary to Development Minister, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, it was stated that the grievance of the said persons may be heard and necessary action be taken to solve their problem. By relying upon the said letters, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that there was assurance by the Government which the government is bound to honour.

6. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 22nd July, 2021 in the case of Najma Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) 8956/2020, to contend that the Doctrines of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation would be applicable in the present case in view of the assurance extended on behalf of government, as there is trust between the citizens and the government.

7. On the other hand, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is justified on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that the appellants on their own showing are admitted to be retailers/hawkers, whereas the market area in question is a wholesale market of national importance. Therefore, no retail business can be allowed to be continued.

8. Having heard learned coun