A municipal authority must substantiate its claims for outstanding license fees against documented payment history, and interest charges should only be levied under prescribed policies and upon valid demands.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Petitioner, inter-alia, seeks a direction to the respondent to issue a licence in favour of the petitioner for shop bearing No. 157-C, Palika Bazar, New Delhi. Petitioner further seeks quashing of letter dated 15.11.2010 whereby arrears have been demanded from the petitioner with interest.

2. Subject shop bearing No. 157-C, Palika Bazar was originally allotted on licence basis to M/s Mod Cottage. Said shop was sub-let on partnership basis from time to time. Partners were inducted; partnership firms dissolved and business carried on by the sub-lettees. This, it is alleged, continues till 2002.

3. By resolution dated 05.11.1985, respondent decided to regularize the allotment of shops in Palika Bazar that had been sub-let on partnership basis.

4. On 11.09.1995, the earlier sub-lettees of the subject shop paid the entire amount as demanded by the respondent for the purposes of regularization. This is also so recorded in the office noting qua the said shop.

5. By a policy dated 18.03.1999, it was decided by the NDMC to freely allow transfer of allotments except in cases of reserved category allotments. The policy stipulated that in case of entry/deletion of partnership, 30% enhancement in licence fee shall be charged. The policy further provided that in case of any delayed non-payment, interest would be charged @ 24% per annum from the date of raising of demand by the NDMC.

6. It is alleged by the Petitioner that she entered into a partnership with the sub-lettees (Mr. Pankaj Mehta and Mr. Adarsh Taneja) on 02.09.2002. On 102.120.2002, Mr. Pankaj Mehta and Mr. Adarsh Taneja dissolved their partnership with the petitioner and petitioner thereafter continues to run business from the said shop.

7. Mr. Pankaj Mehta and Mr. Adarsh Taneja have also confirmed dissolution of their partnership firm and transfer of the said shop in favour of the present petitioner.

8. It is further alleged that from the year 2002 to 2010 regular invoices were raised by the respondent towards monthly licence fees which were duly paid by the petitioner from time to time. The invoices raised from the year 2002 till 2010 did not demand any amount as the arrears towards the licence fee.

9. As per the petitioner, on 07.02.2007, the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 was notified and the trade restrictions imposed in respect of the shop at Palika Bazar were liberalized.

10. On 28.09.2010, petitioner enquired from the respondent about the status of the regularization of the said shop and also sought transfer of the said shop in her name.

11. By the impugned demand dated 15.11.2010, respondent claimed the amount of Rs.77,36,808/- as arrears of licence fee for the period 1979 to 2010 and also claimed interest thereon @ 24% for the said period.

12. On 11.05.2011, petitioner protested against the demand on the ground that she had been regular in making payments as per the invoices/bills raised by NDMC and stated that there were no arrears reflected in the invoices raised by the NDMC from time to time.

13. On 17.06.2011, petitioner met the Chairman of the respondent with