Ramwati vs New Delhi Municipal Council And Anr.

$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 27 April, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 1967/2018 & CM APPL. 8100/2018
RAMWATI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manini Brar and Ms. Muskaan
Chawla, Advocates

versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND
ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Soumit Ganguli,
Ms. Ravicha Sharma, Ms. Shruti
Agarwal and Mr. Akash Sharma,
Advocates for NDMC
Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Archit Mishra
and Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Advocates
for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.05.2026
15:17:15
W.P.(C) 1967/2018 Page 1 of 7

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is an illiterate person belonging
to the Scheduled Caste category (hereinafter ‘SC category’). The petitioner
was allotted the shop No. 15, Old R.K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi pursuant
to a tender process initiated by the respondent no.1/NDMC vide allotment
letters dated 04.12.1991 and 07.01.1992. The said shop was allotted under
the SC category.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mr. Pradeep Singh and Mr. R.
K. Gupta lured the petitioner into entering into a partnership with the private
respondent no.2. for running of the said shop. Since, the petitioner was
illiterate, she signed the documents that were presented to her, being the
partnership deed dated 24.03.1992. Accordingly, the possession of the shop
was handed over to the private respondent no.2. The petitioner further
contends that the private respondent no. 2 continued to be in possession of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.05.2026
15:17:15
W.P.(C) 1967/2018 Page 2 of 7

the shop and kept carrying on business from the shop.
4. It is submitted that thereafter, the private respondent no. 2 wrote a
letter dated 29.07.1992 to the respondent no.1/NDMC seeking transfer of
allotment of the shop from the petitioner’s name to the name of the private
respondent no. 2. Vide letter dated 26.05.2009, the respondent no.1/NDMC
initiated the process to regularise license in the name of respondent no.2.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.1/NDMC, it has
been stated as under:
5.1. It is admitted that the shop was allotted to the petitioner under the
reserved category as the petitioner belong to the SC category.
5.2. A show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.1/NDMC on
th
24 August, 1992 on account of subletting of the shop to respondent no.2.
th
5.3. On 4 May, 1998, another show cause notice was issued by the
respondent no.1/NDMC to the petitioner for encroachment of public area
and violation of terms of the license.
th
5.4. On 14 June, 2007, yet another show cause notice was issued by the
respondent no.1/NDMC to the petitioner on account of trade violation,
unauthorised construction and encroachment, subletting and removal of a
wall.
5.5. Since, the violations were not removed, a cancellation order was
th
passed by the respondent no.1/NDMC on 20 August, 2007, cancelling the
allotment of the shop and withdrawing the license.
5.6. In pursuance of the cancellation, the respondent no.1/NDMC initiated
proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter ‘PPA, 1971”).
5.7. In the said proceedings, the private respondent no.2 entered
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.05.2026
15:17:15
W.P.(C) 1967/2018 Page 3 of 7

appearance and filed an application stating that all violations have been
removed.
5.8. Accordingly, the proceedings filed under the PPA, 1971 were
th
withdrawn on 15 May, 2009.
6. The following objections to the maintainability of the writ petition have
been raised in the counter-affidavit:

6.1. No complaint was received from 1992 to 2010 from the petitioner.
Even when the respondent no.1 issued Show Cause Notices in 1998 and
2007 the same were responded to by the private respondent no. 2 and not the
petitioner.
6.2. Possession of the shop has remained with the private respondent no. 2
since 1992 and the same was not challenged by the petitioner during the
period from 1992 to 2010.
6.3. The present writ has been filed after an inordinate delay.
7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondent no.2,
it is stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner
seeks release in respect of cancellation of partnership and its dissolution
which took place in March, 1992. The petitioner has failed to take any steps
for the cancellation of the said documents before any competent court of
law. It is further stated that the issue of possession is not a fundamental
rights issue, and is triable before a competent court of civil jurisdiction.
8. Ms. Manini Brar, counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, submits
that since the shop was reserved for SC category, the same cannot be
transferred to a general category person such as respondent no.2.
9. Ms. Brar has relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench in Nathia
Devi v . New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.05.2026
15:17:15
W.P.(C) 1967/2018 Page 4 of 7

3830 , wherein this Court taking note of the NDMC policy, Resolution No.6
th
dated 18 March, 1999, has held that units which have been reserved for
SC/ST category persons cannot be transferred in favour of general
candidate. In the said case, the writ petition was filed by a transferee
belonging to the general category, seeking regularisation in his favour, and
the same was rejected by the Court. The relevant observations from the said
judgment are set out below:-
“35. By relying upon the said policy, it has been contended on behalf of
NDMC that the said kiosk which had been allotted under a special
category, cannot be transferred in favour of the petitioner as a ‘General
Category’. It is further the case on behalf of NDMC that the change of
hands through partnership or any other method as applicable to
‘Reserved category units’, refers to transfer under the ‘Reserved
Category’ itself, as there is a bar to transfer of ‘Reserved category units’
to ‘General Category’.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
39. The respondent NDMC has made its policy with respect to transfers
under the ‘General category units’ and the ‘Reserved category units’.
The respondent NDMC being the author of the said policy, the policy has
to be read in the manner as enacted by the NDMC. Supreme Court has
held time and again that restraint be exercised in matters of contract
involving state instrumentalities. The authority which has authored the
contract or tender, is the best judge as to how the documents have to be
interpreted. If two interpretations are possible, then the interpretation of
the author must be accepted.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
41. The aforesaid policy of the NDMC stipulates in clear terms that no
‘Reserved category units’ may be transferred to the ‘General category
units’. It is the contention on behalf of NDMC that the gratuitous
allotment as made in the present case, also constitutes part of ‘Reserved
category units’. Thus, it is apparent that the regularisation of the kiosk
in the name of the petitioner was clearly contrary to the policy of the
NDMC itself. It is undisputed that the allotment in the present case was
made to the original licensee on gratuitous basis @Re.1 per month based
upon special consideration that the original licensee was a National
Bravery Award holder. Thus, the said allotment was certainly not an
allotment under General category on market rates. Therefore, since
kiosks under the Reserved category could not be converted into General
category as per the policy of the NDMC as contained in Resolution No.
6 dated 18.03.1999, the regularisation in favour of the petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.05.2026
15:17:15
W.P.(C) 1967/2018 Page 5 of 7

clearly illegal and against the policy of the NDMC. ”
xxxx xxxx xxxx
49. Besides, it is relevant to note that Clause 8 of the Licence Deed dated
12.04.1983 in favour of the original licencee Ramesh Kumar clearly
stipulated that he shall not enter into any partnership/part with
possession of the said kiosk. It was further specified that in default, the
licencee Ramesh Kumar was liable to ejection. Clause 8 of the Licence
Deed in favour of the original licencee, Ramesh Kumar, as reproduced in
the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Ld. District &
Sessions Judge, reads as follows:
“8. That the licensee shall not permit the allotted premises or any part
thereof to be used by any other person for any purpose
whatsoever without the previous consent in writing and in default
thereof shall be liable for ejectment. The licensee shall not introduce
any partner nor the licensee shall transfer the possession of the
premises or part thereof or otherwise carry on the business in the
premises with any other person or assign, transfer, change or
otherwise alienate his interest in the premises”
50. Perusal of the aforesaid makes it clear that the original licencee was
not entitled to introduce any partner or transfer the possession of the
premises. Therefore, the petitioner cannot draw any benefit from the
partnership deed with the original licencee on the basis of which
possession was taken by the petitioner, when the said partnership deed
itself constituted violation of the terms of the licence in favour of the
original licencee. Therefore, on this ground also, the petitioner cannot
seek any right over the premises in question.”
[Emphasis Supplied]


10. Mr. Sriharsha Peechara has drawn attention of the Court to the stand
taken by the respondent no.1/NDMC in the counter-affidavit filed by the
NDMC, wherein, it has been admitted that the shop cannot be transferred in
favour of a non-SC/ST person in terms of Clause 3(i) of resolution No.6
th
dated 18 March, 1999. The relevant portion of the counter-affidavit is
extracted below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.05.2026
15:17:15
W.P.(C) 1967/2018 Page 6 of 7

11. In view of the aforesaid submissions of parties, the present writ
petition is disposed of while holding that the NDMC in light of its policy
and the judgment of this Court in Nathia Devi (supra), cannot regularise or
transfer the allotment in favour of the private respondent no.2. However, in
exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot direct the respondent no.2 to grant the relief of possession in
favour of the petitioner.
12. Needless to state that petitioner would have liberty to initiate
appropriate proceedings for any other relief that may be permissible in law.
13. Pending application stands disposed of.

AMIT BANSAL, J
APRIL 27, 2026
ds
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.05.2026
15:17:15
W.P.(C) 1967/2018 Page 7 of 7