Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DAILYLAW 1498 (DEL)

PHOOL RANI v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

2001-08-01

Manmohan Sarin

body2001
Delhi High Court (August 1, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125285 2001-DLT-93-55 :: 2001-AD (Del)-6-179 PHOOL RANI Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ). Rule. ( 2 ). With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal. ( 3 ). The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus to be issued to respondents for permitting the change of trade to the petitioner in respect of shop No. 3, Mohan Singh Place, Connaught place, New Delhi. ( 4 ). The petitioner happens to be a licencee at the current rate of Rs. 625. 00 per month with stipulated increase of 5% per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying on the trade of handicrafts and old garments, which has become unprofitable. Hence he applied for change of user. The licence permits change of trade to be allowed by the respondents. The petitioner. accordingly, submitted an application on 12/6/2001 for grant of licence for manufacturing, preparation and sale of articles of food and cold drinks. The said application is still pending. The respondents, in the meantime issued a final show cause notice dated 17/7/2001 wherein it is stated that the petitioner was running a Dhaba-cum-restaurant, preparing and selling food articles in the premises without- permission. Another ground taken was that the space under the stair case, which is allowed to be used only for storage purposes, was being used for preparation of food articles etc. Petitioner was called upon to stop the above usage failing which allotment of shop was to be cancelled. ( 5 ). Mr. Nayar submits that such change of trade has been permitted by the respondents in several other cases within the same building, particulars of which are given in para 15 of the writ petition. He. states that petitioner AS being denied change of trade arbitrarily, and for extraneous reasons. ( 6 ). Learned, counsel for respondent Mr. Sandeep aggarwal submits that petitioner has been violating the licence condition by cooking food in the space under the staircase, which is meant only for storage. It is further stated that there is violation in as much as no change of trade had been permitted to the petitioner, nevertheless he was running a dhaba-cum-restaurant. ( 7 ). Mr. Sandeep aggarwal submits that petitioner has been violating the licence condition by cooking food in the space under the staircase, which is meant only for storage. It is further stated that there is violation in as much as no change of trade had been permitted to the petitioner, nevertheless he was running a dhaba-cum-restaurant. ( 7 ). Mr. Nayar states that he has taken instructions from the petitioner and undertakes that the petitioner would not use the space under the staircase for manufacturing or cooking purposes. It shall be used only for storage. Learned counsel further states on instructions that the petitioner shall not prepare or cook any eatables or food in the premises. The petitioner would only be selling packed food stuffs and cold drinks across the counter, and a licence for a restaurant where food articles are cooked, prepared and served is not required. The petitioner would be carrying out the trade only of selling pre-cooked food, packed material and cold drinks. Mr. Nayar states that he would apply for change of trade within two weeks from today. Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal states that such an application on being received would be duly considered and disposed of within four weeks of receipt in accordance with prevailing instructions and policy. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner not to use the space under the stair case for cooking purposes and not to carry out the change in trade, prior to its sanction, the respondents will not proceed further with the show cause notice as given in case,it is found at any subsequent stage that the petitioner had either failed to apply far the, change of trade or the same is not permitted, respondent shall be free to take such action as warranted in case of any breach of the conditions of the licence. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. --- *** --- .