Doctrine of Parity applies to Shop License Renewals; Discriminatory Sealing Violates Article 14 Equality Protections.

The Respondent and his late brother were allotted Shop No. 3 at Mohan Singh Place Market, with a license valid until 31.03.2019.

Due to defaults in license fees, the NDMC (Appellant) refused renewal and sealed the shop on 19.07.2019, subsequently initiating eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

In a previous writ, the Court directed the NDMC to consider the Respondent's representation regarding parity with other de-sealed shops (Nos. 7, 76, and 96) and pass a speaking order.

The NDMC issued a speaking order on 04.04.2024 rejecting the renewal but failed to address the parity issue.

The Single Judge subsequently set aside that order, directing the NDMC to consider a fresh renewal application and de-seal the shop pending such consideration.

The NDMC appealed this "Impugned Order".

1. Whether the Appellant (NDMC) failed to comply with the Court’s direction to consider the Respondent’s case on the grounds of parity with other similarly situated shops.

2. Whether the Single Judge was justified in directing the de-sealing of the shop pending the consideration of a fresh renewal application.

The Court primarily applied Article 14 of the Constitution of India regarding the right to equality and non-discrimination, specifically the principle of parity in administrative actions.

It also relied on the principles of Natural Justice, requiring an authority to pass a reasoned "speaking order" that addresses the specific contentions raised in a representation.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the doctrine of judicial discipline, requiring administrative bodies to adhere strictly to timelines and specific directions issued by the Court in previous proceedings.

The Court observed that the NDMC failed to adhere to the mandate of the order dated 15.02.2023, which explicitly required the Council to examine if the Respondent was entitled to the same treatment as other shopkeepers whose premises were de-sealed despite expired licenses.

The Court noted that the NDMC's speaking order dated 04.04.2024 was issued under the threat of contempt and ignored the core issue of parity despite the Council's previous undertaking to consider it.

The Court rejected the NDMC’s argument that different factual circumstances justified the discrimination, noting that if such distinctions existed, they should have been detailed in the speaking order itself.

The Court found that the Single Judge correctly identified the arbitrary treatment of the Respondent compared to Shop Nos. 76 and 96, necessitating the de-sealing to restore status quo while the renewal is reconsidered.

The Court directed the Respondent to file a fresh renewal application and ordered the NDMC to consider it in light of the observations on parity; the de-sealing of the shop is maintained pending this consideration, subject to the Respondent cleared all outstanding and future arrears/license fees.