W.P.(C) 426/2010 Page 1 of 4 06. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 426/2010 % Judgment Delivered on: 17.02.2010 BENGAL SELLERS ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Chandra Shekhar and Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay, Advs. versus N.D.M.C. & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner is an association of bangle sellers, who are stated to have been selling bangles for decades at Hanuman Temple Complex, operating from a specifically demarcated open space / Tharas and they have been paying licence fee to respondent no.1 from time to time. At request of the members of the association, the NDMC offered to allot tharas from amongst the existing vacant tharas at Hanuman Temple complex by draw of lots. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner association submits that at the time when the NDMC had issued the letter dated 07.06.2005 for allotment of tharas, there were 20 vacant tharas available and no new construction was proposed to be made at the site. During the period 2005 - December, 2009, no action was taken by the NDMC to construct fresh tharas to accommodate the members of the petitioner association. On 16.12.2009, the petitioner association received a letter calling upon its members to participate in the draw of lots to be held on 21.12.2009 at 12.00 Noon in the Council Room, 3rd floor, Palika Kendra. Members of the petitioner W.P.(C) 426/2010 Page 2 of 4 association were also requested to bring with them photocopy of their proof of identity to enable them to join in the draw of lots. When the members of the petitioner association reached Palika Kendra, they came to know that six members of their association had been clubbed along with other occupants of the sites and therefore they did not participate in the draw of lots. After giving a protest letter the members of the petitioner association walked out. 3. Grievance of the petitioner association is that two separate category of persons, who were dissimilarly situated have been clubbed together by the NDMC in the draw of lots, which was held on 21.12.2009, which has caused serious prejudice to their rights. 4. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned Standing counsel for the respondent/NDMC, on the directions of this Court has filed a status report. As per this status report, all the members of the petitioner association had written a letter to the Chairman/NDMC on 21.08.2009 requesting the respondent/NDMC to allot tharas to the allottees by holding a draw. This letter was signed by all the six members of the petitioner association. As per this status report, 16 persons whose tharas had been demolished were included in the draw of lots, which was held on 21.12.2009. The original documents have been placed on record to show their names, addresses, trade, date of allotment of the allottees including their signatures. 5. Learned standing counsel for the respondent further submits that original slips/parchis bearing the signatures of the allottees have been placed on record of this Court to show that the draw was W.P.(C) 426/2010 Page 3 of 4 conducted in a fair manner. Counsel further submits that the NDMC has followed the prescribed and a fair procedure by including the names of all the allottees for the draw of lots. Counsel also submits that initially all the allottees including the members of the petitioner association were carrying on their trade as tehbazari holders at tharas / open to sky shops. The NDMC has now provided shops with shutters to all the sixteen allottees including the present petitioners. Counsel next submits that out of the six members of the petitioner association, five had come to attend the meeting, but only three members accepted the allotment and made the payment. Counsel also submits that out of these five members, two members - namely, Sh. Shafiq and Sh. Mohd. Ahmed, left the meeting without signing the attendance sheet. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner association submits that these three members have made the payment under pressure and under threat of cancellation. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two shops are lying vacant and in case the NDMC considers the allotment in favour of the two members of the petitioner association their grievance would be satisfied. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original documents placed on record. I am satisfied that the NDMC has conducted the draw in a fair manner on 26.12.2009 and 16 allotments have been made, possession of which has also been handed over to the allottees. I find no illegality or infirmity in the procedure followed by the NDMC. The petitioners have been W.P.(C) 426/2010 Page 4 of 4 provided shops with shutters, whereas in the past, petitioners were carrying on their businesses on tharas / open to sky shop. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. It would, however, be open to the members of petitioner association to approach the NDMC for allotment of two shops, which are stated to be lying vacant. The NDMC will consider the request of the petitioner association expeditiously. G.S. SISTANI, J. February 17, 2010 'msr’