a $-1 t i ; IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Qate of hea.ring and Order: 23''o November, 201l + (1) w.P.(C) BQSetzQl1 & C.M.No. 18146120rI SMT. SUMAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND OR$ ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate (2) W.P.(C) 806012011 & C.M.No. I8I47t20rr NIRAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Ttuoqgh: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate vgrsus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate (3) w.P.(C) 8Q611201 1 & C.M.No. 18ls I|20II SHIBLAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (4) W.P.(C) 8rr3t20rr & r82s3t20rr BHARTI GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8Q61,8113,8114, 81L5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, -i -.,\ + 7703,7704 &7705/2OLL Page 1 " Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified (s) w.P.(c) 81r4l2Qr1 & 182s5t20rr SHASHANK KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Threugh: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, AdvocaJe versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Thrgugh: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate I)\-r -.J (6) w.P.(C) 811s12011 & C.M.No. I82s7l20Ir AKLAKH RAHIM KHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate versus IJOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Throllgh: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate , + (7) W.P.(C) 7 077 1201 1 & r6rs9l20rr -1\-. VINEET KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (8) w.P.(C) 707812011 & C.M.No. 1616112011 TRILOCI-IAN SINGH BHATIA Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061-,8IL3,8114,81L5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/2011 Page2 + (9) w.P.(C) 707el2QI1 & C.M.No. 16163/2011 SLTNITA KUMARI (.10)w.P.(C) 708012011 & C.M.No. I6I6sl20I1 KULDEEP SINGH + (12)w.P.(C) 763s12011 & C.M.No. 1729s12011 ZONGPON LEPCHA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate -*' -r -l fhrough: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Ihrough: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (1l)w.P.(C) 7634/2011 & C.M.No. 1729312011 -\ -: NEELMANI ..... Petitioner fhrough: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate versus "- UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondbnts Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,8L13,8LL4,8]-15,7077,7078,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201,1 Page 3 4 + (13) W.P.(C) 7636/2011 & C.M.No. 17297/2011 SMT.MUMTAZ ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advoqate versus IJOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate I + (14) W.P.(C) 770212011 & C.M.No. 174561201r . SHIVA NAND + (16) W.P.(C) 770412011 & C.M.No. 1746012011 MAHINDER SINGH Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (1s) w.P.(C) 770312011 & C.M.No. 174581201r , ZURIP LAPCHA Petitioner \-r Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents ' Through: Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8II3,8114,8LI5,7077 ,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/20L1 Page 4 + (17) w.P.(C) 770s12011 & C.M.No. VINOD KUMAR Through: 1746212011 ..... Petitioner Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of lqcal papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or npt? No. Whether the judgment should reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR. J. (Oral) 1. The relief sought in this bunch of 17 petitions is to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners who are running PCO Booth at the Railway Station to sell other miscellaneous items to properly earn their livelihood as thq case put fofth by the petitioners is that running of pCO booth is a losing proposition now a days with the wide-spread use of mobile phones and cordless phones, etc. 2. Petitioners claim that they are running the STD/ISD PCO booth since the year 1991 onwards and are earning their livelihood there-from and now a days it is becoming increasingly difficult to make both ends meet due to scant use of PCO booths and so they had made representation to respondents to permit the petitioners to sell other w.P.(c) No. 8059, 8060, 8051, 8Lr3,8!L4,8Lrs,7077,7078,7079,7o9o,7634,7635,7636,7702, t\ \ <.1 2. 3. 7703,77Q4 &770512}tr Page 5 II \ '.. I miscellaneous items as well from their PCo booths. Few of the petitioners in thiq bunch Of petitions are physical handicapped and their representatign for permission to sell other items from the STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station was considered by the respondents and was rejected en 16.11 .201I by obqerving as under:- (As per the existing policy guidelines, sTD/PCO Booths oru ollottedfor a specific purpose and booth holders cannot be permitted to undertake other activities. To sell additional items, multipwrpose stalls are already available at the stattons which provide better facility to passengers. Therefore, the request for selling additional items fro* these booths is not considered desirable. 3. The fate of the representations of the petitioners under the general category, who are running STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station, has not yet been decided by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this coutt to the decision of the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 169911987 titled as Sutlhir Madan & Ors vs. M.C.D. & Ors., decided on 6.2.2007, wherein the issue of existing PCO Booths being allowed to switch over to other trade was considered and what was said by the Apex Courl in the aforesaid decision is as under:- "The existtng PCO booths wtll also be allowed to switch over to other trades as the PCOs have become outdated due to inceptton or mobile phones/cordless phones. " 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court the respondents are duty bound to perrnit the petitiqners to switch over to other trades as running of PCO booths at the Railway stations is a losing proposition. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court to a W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 81L3,8114,8L15,7077,7O78,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, - 7703,7704 &7705120tL Page 6 O? II I circular dt. 14.5.2004 of the respondents and in particular to clause 8.7 thereof, which stipulates that the maximum period for running of such booth is 10 years and it is stated that in most of the Qases, the said period has already elapsed and by taking a humanitarian view extensions have been already granted in some eases and now, if any extension would be granted, the same would be in terms of the aforesaid Circular which holds the field as of todaY. 6. Be that as it may. The question of extension of license granted to ' petitioners or to other similarly placed PCO booth operators is not being considered in these petitions. What is being considered is whether in view of the rejection of 16th November, 2011 of the representation of some of the petitionerg, whQ were physically handicapped, whether the respondgnts qan be called upon to consider afresh the clairn of the petitioners for switching over to other trades in terms of the dictum of thg Apex Court as referred to above. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents states that as and when such representations are received from the petitioners, the same would be considered by affording a hearing to the petitioners and by passing of a s ipeaking order thereon within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representations. 8. Leamed counsel for the petitioners, on instructions states that the comprehensive representations would be made to the respondents within four weeks. 9. While leaving the question of extension of license to the PCO booth operators open, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents that as and when the respondents receive representations from the petitioners for switching over to other trades for w.p.(c) No.8059,8060,8061, 8LL3,81L4,81L5,7077,7078,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, a 7703,7704 &7705lzOLL PageT the remaining license period, the same would be considered in view of the dicturn of the Apex Cqurt, as referred to above. 10. With aforesaid observations, these petitions as well as pending applioations are disposed of with no orders as to costs. 11. A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for both the sides. It {L NOVEMBER 23,2QII pkb W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,8L13,8t14,81!5,7077,7078,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, ., -\-J (if GAUR) 7703,7704 &7705/20L1 Page B