WP (C) 4508/08 Page 1 of 4 24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON: 30.03.2009 + W.P. (C) 4508/2008 DHARAMVIR KHERA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Priani, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate. Mr. Nawal Kishroe Jha, Advocate for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 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? S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) % The petitioner claims directions to the respondents not to interfere in the plying of his trade i.e. operating refrigerated water trolleys from the 17 sites allotted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). 2. The petitioner claims to have been operating water trolleys since 1975 in accordance with the policies of the MCD. He has filed copies of the trade licenses issued in that regard. It is claimed that in accordance with past practice, the MCD licensed him to operate at specified places, for the period 2008-09. He, however, submits that the first respondent – Delhi Police is WP (C) 4508/08 Page 2 of 4 obstructing and not permitting the operation of such water trolleys, which is causing hindrance to his peaceful occupation. 3. The MCD, in its counter affidavit states as follows: - “3. It is submitted that as per the record, the Petitioner has been granted license by the Answer Respondent in respect of the Water Cooling Plant in the name and style of M/s. Dharamvir Khera Water Cooling Plant situated at 40, Nanakpura, New Delhi since 1975. 4. That as per the record, initially, the Petitioner was granted licence for Water Cooling Plant together with licence for operating 17 Water Trolleys within 3 KM radius of his the cooling plant at Shop No.40, Nanakpura Market [R.K. Puram], New Delhi and the license in respect of the aforesaid Water Cooling Plant and Water Cooling Plant and Water Trolleys has been renewed accordingly. 5. That however, presently, licence has been granted for operating 21 Water Trolleys in the above said area and the same has been renewed upto 31st of March, 2009. Therefore, the Answering Respondent is neither objecting to the Petitioner for operating the Water Trolleys in the aforementioned area as per the licence granted to the Petitioner nor have any objection in this regard. AS regards the allegations against the Respondent No.1, the Answering Respondent is nothing to do with the same.” 4. The First respondent – Delhi Police adverts to certain general directions issued by a Division Bench in WP (C) 16565/2006 decided on 4.5.2007. The relevant portion of the said order is to the following effect: - “12. The Delhi Transport Corporation shall continue to make proper bus stands with proper bus-bays wherever it is possible. The bus tands so made shall be disabled-friendly and there shall be no encroachers permitted on these bus stands i.e. no person would be permitted to occupy any space of the bus stand or immediately adjacent to the bus stands for keeping a water trolley or other raidees etc. 13. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi/New Delhi Municipal Corporation shall not issue any license, contrary to the above WP (C) 4508/08 Page 3 of 4 direction. They shall also ensure that all the roads in Delhi shall be cleared from the unauthorized occupation of shopkeepers, raidees, water-trolleys and no other object, which obstructs the traffic and no part of the main road shall be used for parking of vehicles/rickshaws/scooters. The authorities shall also take effective steps to ensure compliance of directions contained in the order dated 16th March, 2007. The Assistant Commissioner of Police shall ensure that the authorities concerned are fully implementing this condition. There should be no violation of these conditions in the area under their control.” 5. It is contended that although the MCD has granted the trade license, yet in the light of the above, the petitioner is not being permitted to ply the trade. 6. The above directions of the Division Bench were modified by another order, in review proceedings. The said order to the extent it is relevant reads as follows: - “If a water trolly is duly licenced and does not fall foul of directions No.12 and 13 (supra), it will not be affected in any way. In that view, therefore, we see no reason to alter or modify the direction regarding removal of unauthorized occupation or non-user of bus stands for purposes of parking of water trollies or other push carts (Raidees) in or around the same. The review application fails and is hereby dismissed” 7. It is evident that the Division Bench permitted water trolleys to be operated provided they did not fall foul of directions No.12 and 13 in the main order. 8. The MCD concedes to having issued the license to the petitioner favour in this case. The License permits him to operate water trolleys. Generally these water trolleys were located in the vicinity of bus stand to enable WP (C) 4508/08 Page 4 of 4 commuters particularly during summer months the facility of consuming water. The petitioner’s grievance is about obstruction by the Delhi Police would deprive him of his livelihood no doubts appears to be well founded. Nevertheless, the Division Bench had prohibited permission to operate such licenses. Although the Division Bench no doubt was persuaded to it as it did, on account of what was considered as obstructions in the pavement near the bus stand, however, the petitioner contends that there is no prohibition in terms of the MCD policies or under any enactment for the grant of such license. Even otherwise under Section 299 and 300 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, title to the pavements and the roads vests with the MCD. 9. Learned counsel contends that in view of the orders of the Division Bench, the MCD should consider his request for grant of license in alternative areas to ensure that they can be operated and that such areas do not fall within the prohibited areas, as per orders of Court. In case, the petitioner applies for grant of such licenses, the MCD shall deal with it and indicate its response directly to the petitioner or issue the license as the case may be within four weeks of presentation of such application (s). 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) MARCH 30, 2009 /vd/