JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. As per the petitioner, DDA allotted to him a taxi-stand under cover of letter dated 4.7.1989. After the allotment, he obtained water, electricity and telephone connections and commenced business of plying taxis which were stationed at the taxi-stand under the name of M/s. Dhanoa Transport Service. As per the petitioner, after possession of the site was handed over to him on 7.7.1989 vide letter dated 25.5.1990, half site was withdrawn. He challenged the withdrawal vide CWP No. 2196/90. The same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.8.1990. He challenged the dismissal by way of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 12070/90 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was disposed of vide order dated 24.1.1991 recording that the appellant would not be removed from the site.

2. As per the petitioner due to construction of Bhikaji Cama Place, building material and debris were dumped in and around his taxi-stand. It is resulted in a civil litigation between him and DDA.

3. According to the petitioner on 6.8.2003, officers of DDA came to the site and threatened to evict the petitioner. He lodged a police complaint. Since police took no action, he had to approach the criminal Court under Section 156, Cr.P.C. for directions being issued by the criminal Court. FIR No. 46 dated 19.1.2004, P.S. R.K. Puram stands registered against the officers of DDA.

4. It is stated in the petition that on 9.9.2004, attempt was made to demolish the structure at site so that DDA could repossess the site.

5. On the allegations afore-noted, petitioner prays that mandamus be issued to the respondent to de-seal the taxi-stand and a writ of prohibition be issued restraining them from demolishing the taxi-stand.

6. As per DDA, taxi-stand site admeasuring 41.83 sq. mtrs., built and developed at Bhikaji Cama Place by DDA was licensed to the petitioner at a monthly licence fee of Rs. 8,012/-. That w.e.f. 18.6.1992, licence fee has not been paid.

7. Though the petitioner did not predicated a stand under Rule 76 of Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules,1993, since while issuing show-cause notice on 14.9.2004 this Court had referred to the said rules, in the counter affidavit filed, DDA has dealt with the legal issue as well.

8. Since Rule 76 of Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993 empowers the District Magistrate to create taxi-stand, allot taxi-stand and cancel the established taxi stand, in para 6 of the counter affidavit, DDA has explained as under:

"6. That this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14.9.2004 has questioned the authority of the respondent to notify/denotify the allotment of taxi-stand as Rule 76 of Delhi Motor Rules, 1993 vest all the powers for allotting and for other action with the District Magistrate of the area. It is, however, submitted that the aforesaid rule empowers the District Magistrate of an area to notify/denotify taxi-stands in this respect. It is submitted that the respondent has allotted the taxi-stand to the petitioner as per policy guidelines as well as in accordance with the provisions as mentioned in the report of the Committee constituted for framing the policy regarding general taxi-stands. It is submitted that the aforesaid Committee was constituted pursuant to the judgment dated 4.12.1996 of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court wherein this Hon'ble Court held that allotment of a taxi-stand does not confer on the petitioner any right in the land on which the taxi-stand is located or in the structure erected thereon. It is further submitted that the above mentioned committee after taking into consideration the fact that the post of District Magistrate is non-existent in the territory of Delhi, came to the conclusion that the powers of notifying/denotifying of the District Magistrate should be conferred on the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi and whose powers of notifying/denotifying and all other relation action may be delegated to the Deputy Commiss