1. Allotment of shops in a marketing complex — Differential license fees and trade zoning restrictions for rehabilitated stall-holders versus tender-based allottees — Challenge under Article 14. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 258
1996(1) Supreme 683
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.P. Singh and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Gursharan Singh & Ors. etc. etc. -Appellants
versus
New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7499/83, 8887/83, 8888/83, 3019/86, 4375/88, 7503/83, 565/87, 7500/83 and 4054/86
with
Writ Petition No. 5331 of 1983
Smt. Ashwani Sachdeva -Petitioner
versus
New Delhi Municipal Committee -Respondent
Decided on 2-2-1996
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
The appellants cannot claim concessions given to preferential allottees of stall holders of Panchkuian Road in Palika Bazar about low licence fee and relaxation in trade zoning restrictions on the basis of concept of equality before law as enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The appellants cannot claim concessions given to preferential allottees of stall holders of Panchkuian Road in Palika Bazar about low licence fee and relaxation in trade zoning restrictions on the basis of concept of equality before law as enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Subject
Administrative Law - Discrimination
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Constitution of India-Articles 32 and 136-Appeals by special leave and writ petition-NDMC allotted shops in Palika Bazar to stall holders of Panchkuian Road on lees licence fee and without trade zoning restrictions-Appellants were given shops on higher licence fee and subject to trade zoning restrictions-D.B. of High Court dismissed writ petitions of appellants holding that there was proper justification for this defence and it does not offend Art. 14-Whether correct ? (Yes) (Paras 9 & 10)-Art. 14 cannot be invoked negatively. (Para 9)
(ii) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeals by special leave-Interim directions of status quo- Appellants paid licence fee at reserved rates and not at agreed rates- Appeals dismissed-Arrears accumulated of difference between reserve rate and agreed rate-Prayer by appellants for reasonable instalments -NDMC claiming interest on arrears -Whether both be granted ? (Yes) (Paras 13 and 14)-Appropriate directions given accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Differential treatment regarding license fees and zoning restrictions is arbitrary and discriminatory — Claim for equal concessions extended to a separate class of allottees under Article 14. (Para 7 )
3. Rehabilitation of stall-holders for public purpose constitutes a reasonable classification — Appellants cannot claim benefits extended to others if such benefits are not sanctioned by law. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Equality before law is a positive concept — It cannot be invoked to extend an illegality or irregularity committed in favor of another person or group. (Para 9 )
5. Appeals and writ petition dismissed — Allottees directed to pay agreed license fees with interest and revert to specified trade zoning restrictions. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. When is differential treatment of allottees in a government project permissible under Article 14?
Differential treatment is permissible if based on a reasonable and rational basis. Providing concessions to stall-holders for rehabilitation to facilitate road widening for a public purpose constitutes a valid separate class, making such distinctions rational rather than arbitrary. (Para 8 )
7. Can a person invoke Article 14 to claim the same benefit if an illegality was committed in favor of another?
No. Equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. A person cannot claim that an irregularity or illegality committed in favor of another be repeated in their favor to claim equality. (Para 9 )
8. How does the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit apply to financial arrears during pending litigation?
The maxim means an act of court shall prejudice no man. Where interim orders prevent the payment of dues, the court may award reasonable interest on arrears to ensure the authority does not suffer due to court-induced delays. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT
N.P. Singh, J.-These appeals along with a writ petition have been filed on behalf of the different licensees of the shops in the shopping complex known as Palika Bazar which was built by the respondent, New Delhi Municipal Committee (hereinafter referred to as the NDMC ) in the year 1976. The whole complex is centrally air-conditioned. It appears that by a resolution dated 29.11.1977, NDMC decided to allot 98 shops to shopkeepers of Panchkkuian Road because the space occupied by them at the said Panchkuian Road was required for widening of the said road. Again on 27.5.1978 the Delhi Administration directed the NDMC to allot shops to 98 stall-holders of Panchkuian Road on the conditions agreed. A plan of the said marketing complex was prepared and published showing 98 shops which had been reserved for the shopkeepers of Panchkuian Road on preferential basis. Tenders were invited for allotment of other 177 shops divided into four zones and further classified in seven groups for proper identification. In the advertisement it was stated that reserved shops were not being put to tender and preference for allotment of a particular shop in a group will be given to the highest tenderers. It was also stated that only those tenders shall be considered which were above the reserved rate. One of the terms of allotment being term No. 9 was as follows :
"only those trades such as mentioned in the trade zoning plan shall be permitted to be run in the shop. A copy of the details of the trade zoning is appended to this document as appendix A ."
The aforesaid zones were demarcated on the plan of the shopping complex which had been prepared by the NDMC. The persons submitting tenders were required to state the trade which they proposed to run in the shops. In the application forms it had been clearly mentioned that "only such trades as mentioned in the trade zoning plan shall be permitted." The applicant was also required to give an undertaking that he had carefully read the memorandum of information and the terms and conditions of the allotment and that he had agreed to abide by the same. The shops were to be given on licence for a period of five years and thereafter the licence was renewable subject to increase in the licence fee by 10 per cent and on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the NDMC. Different reserved prices were fixed for different shops. The appellants in different appeals including the writ petitioner filed their tenders and indicated the trade which they wanted to run in the shops to be allotted to them. There is no dispute that the applicants while submitting the tenders, offered the licence fee at a much higher rate than what was mentioned as the reserved rate of licence fee in respect of different shops. Thereafter letters of allotment were issued indicating the trade which such licensee could carry in the shops which had been allotted to them. In other words, the applicants whose tenders were accepted on the rates offered by them were not only required to pay the licence fee offered by them and accepted by the NDMC, but they undertook to occupy the shops in different trading zones and to carry on the trades which were specified to be carried on in the zones concerned.
2. So far the Panchkuian Road stall-holders were concerned, allotment of shops were made to them in the zones reserved for them, but they were not subjected to zoning restrictions, the only restriction which was imposed on them was that they had to carry on only the permissible trade specified in Appendix A to the terms and conditions of the allotment. They were to pay the licence fee also at a different rate which was admittedly at a lower rate than the licence fee which had been offered and accepted from the applicants who were allotted shops out of 177 shops referred to above. It is the case of the NDMC that special consideration in respect of licence fee as well as the zoning restriction in respect of Panchkuian stall-holders was ma
