Licensee has no inherent right to renewal; renewal remains at the licensor's sole discretion.

Rabi Ghosh (the "Licensee") held a license for Shop-cum-flat no. 27, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, which was renewed periodically until March 31, 2015

In 2014, HDB Financial Services informed the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) that Ghosh had mortgaged the subject property to secure a loan

Additionally, in 2016, the property was attached by the High Court in execution proceedings against a company where Ghosh was a director

Ghosh also executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2017 to transfer possession of the property to a third party, Archit Jain

NDMC initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, which were initially dismissed by the Estate Officer and the District Judge on the grounds that no mortgage was proven

Subsequently, NDMC rejected Ghosh’s application for license renewal on December 22, 2022, citing his attempts to alienate government property

Ghosh challenged this rejection via writ petition, while NDMC challenged the District Judge's order in the eviction matter

1. Whether a licensee has an inherent right to the renewal of a license deed after its expiry by efflux of time

2. Whether the NDMC's refusal to renew the license was arbitrary or justified by the licensee's conduct regarding the collateralization and attempted alienation of public property

3. Whether the NDMC Circular dated August 16, 2016, regarding license renewals, was applicable to the petitioner’s case

The court applied the principle that a license does not create any estate or interest in the property and stands terminated by efflux of time

It emphasized that renewal is a matter of the licensor's discretion and not a vested right of the licensee

Under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the authority is entitled to refuse renewal based on misconduct or breach of terms

Furthermore, administrative circulars are governed by their specific applicability clauses; here, the court noted that circulars do not apply retrospectively to pending cases if a cutoff date is specified

The court examined evidence showing that Ghosh had signed a loan sanction letter listing the government property as "additional collateral," proving his intent to mortgage it despite his denials

The 2017 MoU explicitly recorded Ghosh’s intention to hand over possession and transfer the license to a third party, which the court viewed as a clear violation of license terms

The court dismissed Ghosh’s defense—that the mortgage was never finalized and the attachment was eventually lifted—reasoning that these corrective actions (such as the 2020 MoU cancellation) were "fraudulent" afterthoughts designed solely to obtain a renewal after NDMC initiated litigation

Regarding the 2016 Circular, the court found it inapplicable because Ghosh's license had expired in 2015, making his case "pending" prior to the circular’s issuance

The court concluded that NDMC acted reasonably, as Ghosh had acted collusively to treat public property as his private asset

W.P.(C) 17451/2024 was dismissed, upholding the NDMC’s rejection of the license renewal

CM(M) 152/2021 was disposed of as infructuous in light of the writ petition's dismissal

NDMC was authorized to take legal steps to recover outstanding dues from the licensee