WPC No.10880/2009 Page 1 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10880/2009 M/S. HIMAYALAN TRAVEL TOUR (I) LTD .... Petitioner Through Mr. V. Sharma, Advocate. versus M/S, INDIAN TORISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ... Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Kapur, Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Khurana, Sr. Assistant, Ashoka Hotel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 15.01.2010 1. By the impugned order dated 7th August, 2009, the Estate Officer has rejected the application of the petitioner, M/s. Himalayan Travel Tours (I) Pvt. Ltd. for production of documents by the respondent No.1, Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited. The Estate Officer in his order has recorded that any agreement between the respondent No.1 and a third party is not relevant for adjudication of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. 2. During the course of hearing counsel for the respondent No.1 states that the original/first agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, if available in their records, will be supplied within a period of ten days. 3. With regard to the agreement between the respondent No.1 and M/s. Capitol and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd., counsel for the respondent No.1 points out that the application does not state how and why the said agreement is WPC No.10880/2009 Page 2 relevant. 4. As far as supply of agreement between the respondent No.1 and M/s. Capitol and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the application filed by the petitioner is entirely vague. It does not even mention the license fee payable by the said parties and why and how the said documents are relevant to show arbitrariness. It is a case of a blind allegation. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Estate Officer, rejecting the request of the petitioner for supply of the said documents. 5. Counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the license fee as is being paid by M/s. Capitol and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is open to the petitioner to raise such plea, if available, before the Estate Officer. This, however, does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to copy of the agreement between the respondent No.1 and M/s. Capitol and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd. 6. Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the license agreement with M/s. Capitol and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd. is of no relevance to the proceedings, which have been initiated under the the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. He states that the respondent No.1 will be entitled to take necessary objections if any such plea is taken before the Estate Officer. He further submits that the petitioner is deliberately delaying the matter. The Writ petition is disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JANUARY 15, 2010 NA/P