Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16501/2006
MS. ANJANA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Pushkar Sood, Mr.Anshuman Sood,
advocates.
versus
ESTATE OFFICER, SAFDURJUNG HOSPITAL ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Jatan Singh, Mr.Praneet Pranav,
advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% 11.03.2010
The petitioner was allotted on license basis, a tea and snack stall
th
at Safdurjung Hospital on 19 September, 2002 for a period of twelve
months on license fee of Rs.1000/- p.m.
th
2. On 20 September, 2003 the said license was extended for a
period of six months on monthly license fee of Rs.1600/- p.m.
th
3. By notice dated 24 February, 2004, the license was terminated
th
and the petitioner was asked to vacate the said stall by 30 April,
2004.
4. As the petitioner did not vacate the stall, proceedings were
initiated under the Act before the Estate Officer vide notice under
Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short).
th
5. The eviction Order dated 29 September, 2004 was passed by
the Estate Officer. Appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the
learned Additional District Judge was dismissed by the impugned Order
th
dated 19 October, 2006.
WPC No.16501/2006 Page 1
6. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that
st
the license period expired on 31 March, 2004 and that the stall in
question is public premises. Unauthorised occupation of public
premises is established beyond doubt.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged discrimination and
in this regard my attention was drawn to fresh allotments made by the
respondent hospital to third parties to operate and sell tea and snacks
stalls in the years 2007 and 2008. My attention is drawn to five such
instances in which fresh license deeds were executed in favour of
Naresh Prasad & Co. and Seema Gupta. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that aforesaid allotments prove that the
stand of the respondent hospital that they had decided to renew the
licenses of private parties except that of Bank of Baroda, Hindustan
Latex, Luna Scales and HPMC after completion of their contract period
in the meeting of the Hospital Management and Technical Committee
th
held on 10 December, 2003 is false and was not followed. It is alleged
therefore that the petitioner’s license was wrongly not renewed.
8. The respondent hospital have placed on record the minutes
th
dated 10 December, 2003 of the Hospital Management and Technical
Committee. It was decided that except in the case of Bank of Baroda,
Hindustan Latex, Luna Scales and HPMC, all other establishments
would not be granted extension of time or renewal of license after
completion of their contract period. It was in these circumstances that
st
the license of the petitioner which expired on 31 March, 2004 was not
extended and consequent thereto proceedings before the Estate
Officer were initiated as the petitioner did not vacate the stall even
after the expiry of the license period. It appears that this policy was
effectively implemented till 2007.
9. As per the file notings of the respondent hospital placed on
record, in and around September 2007 a proposal was made for
allotment of some sites to third parties. While the proposal was
pending consideration it was noticed that any allotment to a third
person would cause embarrassment to the respondent hospital and
WPC No.16501/2006 Page 2
adversely affect pending cases before the High Court and the District
Court. However, the said objection was overruled recording that “we
are not giving any place but are permitting the third party to put up a
vending machine on the ground and fifth floor of the OPD Building as
there is demand from hospital staff and patients”.
10. There is obviously contradiction between the policy decision
th
dated 10 December, 2003 and these allotments which have been
made subsequently. However, I need not go further into the said
aspect for two reasons. Firstly, the respondent themselves have
realized their error and mistake and have cancelled the said allotments
to third parties. It is stated by the respondent hospital in their affidavit
th
dated 16 February, 2010 that in four cases, cancellation orders have
already been issued and in the fifth case, the file was under process
for issue of cancellation order. Today during the course of hearing,
learned counsel for the respondent hospital has stated at Bar that
cancellation order in respect of the fifth stall has also been issued. It is
further stated that eviction orders have also been passed by the Estate
Officer in the four cases and appeals are pending under Section 9 of
the Act. With regard to one case, it is stated that possession of the stall
has been taken. Admittedly, the petitioner has remained in possession
of the property till today and therefore indirectly the petitioner has
enjoyed all benefit and advantage of the wrong and illegal action of the
respondent hospital. Secondly, it is well settled that Article 14 has to
be interpreted in a positive manner. The petitioner cannot claim that
the respondent hospital have acted illegally and contrary to their policy
in some other cases and therefore must act illegally in his/her case
also so that there is no discrimination. Illegality and wrongly
act/inaction in other cases does not confer a legal right on the
petitioner to enforce illegality through a court direction.
11. It may be noted that some other parties whose licences were not
th
renewed after policy decision dated 10 December, 2003 had
challenged the eviction orders before this Court. The said writ
petitions; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8444/2005 titled Ajay Kumar vs Union
WPC No.16501/2006 Page 3
th
of India was dismissed on 19 May, 2006 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1797/2007 titled P.S. Sundaram vs Administrative Officer
th
(Estate)Safdurjung Hospital was dismissed on 29 January, 2008. The
facts of the present case are identical.
12. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present
Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 11, 2010
P/VKR/P
WPC No.16501/2006 Page 4
+ W.P.(C) 16501/2006
MS. ANJANA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Pushkar Sood, Mr.Anshuman Sood,
advocates.
versus
ESTATE OFFICER, SAFDURJUNG HOSPITAL ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Jatan Singh, Mr.Praneet Pranav,
advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% 11.03.2010
The petitioner was allotted on license basis, a tea and snack stall
th
at Safdurjung Hospital on 19 September, 2002 for a period of twelve
months on license fee of Rs.1000/- p.m.
th
2. On 20 September, 2003 the said license was extended for a
period of six months on monthly license fee of Rs.1600/- p.m.
th
3. By notice dated 24 February, 2004, the license was terminated
th
and the petitioner was asked to vacate the said stall by 30 April,
2004.
4. As the petitioner did not vacate the stall, proceedings were
initiated under the Act before the Estate Officer vide notice under
Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short).
th
5. The eviction Order dated 29 September, 2004 was passed by
the Estate Officer. Appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the
learned Additional District Judge was dismissed by the impugned Order
th
dated 19 October, 2006.
WPC No.16501/2006 Page 1
6. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that
st
the license period expired on 31 March, 2004 and that the stall in
question is public premises. Unauthorised occupation of public
premises is established beyond doubt.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged discrimination and
in this regard my attention was drawn to fresh allotments made by the
respondent hospital to third parties to operate and sell tea and snacks
stalls in the years 2007 and 2008. My attention is drawn to five such
instances in which fresh license deeds were executed in favour of
Naresh Prasad & Co. and Seema Gupta. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that aforesaid allotments prove that the
stand of the respondent hospital that they had decided to renew the
licenses of private parties except that of Bank of Baroda, Hindustan
Latex, Luna Scales and HPMC after completion of their contract period
in the meeting of the Hospital Management and Technical Committee
th
held on 10 December, 2003 is false and was not followed. It is alleged
therefore that the petitioner’s license was wrongly not renewed.
8. The respondent hospital have placed on record the minutes
th
dated 10 December, 2003 of the Hospital Management and Technical
Committee. It was decided that except in the case of Bank of Baroda,
Hindustan Latex, Luna Scales and HPMC, all other establishments
would not be granted extension of time or renewal of license after
completion of their contract period. It was in these circumstances that
st
the license of the petitioner which expired on 31 March, 2004 was not
extended and consequent thereto proceedings before the Estate
Officer were initiated as the petitioner did not vacate the stall even
after the expiry of the license period. It appears that this policy was
effectively implemented till 2007.
9. As per the file notings of the respondent hospital placed on
record, in and around September 2007 a proposal was made for
allotment of some sites to third parties. While the proposal was
pending consideration it was noticed that any allotment to a third
person would cause embarrassment to the respondent hospital and
WPC No.16501/2006 Page 2
adversely affect pending cases before the High Court and the District
Court. However, the said objection was overruled recording that “we
are not giving any place but are permitting the third party to put up a
vending machine on the ground and fifth floor of the OPD Building as
there is demand from hospital staff and patients”.
10. There is obviously contradiction between the policy decision
th
dated 10 December, 2003 and these allotments which have been
made subsequently. However, I need not go further into the said
aspect for two reasons. Firstly, the respondent themselves have
realized their error and mistake and have cancelled the said allotments
to third parties. It is stated by the respondent hospital in their affidavit
th
dated 16 February, 2010 that in four cases, cancellation orders have
already been issued and in the fifth case, the file was under process
for issue of cancellation order. Today during the course of hearing,
learned counsel for the respondent hospital has stated at Bar that
cancellation order in respect of the fifth stall has also been issued. It is
further stated that eviction orders have also been passed by the Estate
Officer in the four cases and appeals are pending under Section 9 of
the Act. With regard to one case, it is stated that possession of the stall
has been taken. Admittedly, the petitioner has remained in possession
of the property till today and therefore indirectly the petitioner has
enjoyed all benefit and advantage of the wrong and illegal action of the
respondent hospital. Secondly, it is well settled that Article 14 has to
be interpreted in a positive manner. The petitioner cannot claim that
the respondent hospital have acted illegally and contrary to their policy
in some other cases and therefore must act illegally in his/her case
also so that there is no discrimination. Illegality and wrongly
act/inaction in other cases does not confer a legal right on the
petitioner to enforce illegality through a court direction.
11. It may be noted that some other parties whose licences were not
th
renewed after policy decision dated 10 December, 2003 had
challenged the eviction orders before this Court. The said writ
petitions; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8444/2005 titled Ajay Kumar vs Union
WPC No.16501/2006 Page 3
th
of India was dismissed on 19 May, 2006 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1797/2007 titled P.S. Sundaram vs Administrative Officer
th
(Estate)Safdurjung Hospital was dismissed on 29 January, 2008. The
facts of the present case are identical.
12. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present
Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 11, 2010
P/VKR/P
WPC No.16501/2006 Page 4