W.P.(C)NO.873/2010 Page 1 of 5 44-46. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15507/2006 CUT FLOWER GROWERS AND SUPPLIERS ASSO. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Rajiv Awasthy, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Adv. for NDMC. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for respondent/review petitioner (D.A.M.B.) Mr. Subhash Sharma, Adv. for Delhi Agricultural Board. Ms. Bandana Shukla, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr. A.K. Tandon, Adv. for respondent. + W.P.(C) 1424/2007 VINAY KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Ajay Kumar Tandon, Adv. versus N.D.M.C. & ORS. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Adv. for the NDMC. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for respondent review petitioner D.A.M.B. Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. for respondent no.5. + W.P.(C) 13768/2009 PHOOL PATTI UPTADAK KALYAN SAMITI(REGD) ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Bahar-U-Barqi, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Adv. for NDMC. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for W.P.(C)NO.873/2010 Page 2 of 5 respondent/Review Petitioner (D.A.M.B.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI O R D E R % 25.04.2011 CM NO.10249/2010 (DELAY of 138 days) IN W.P.(C) 15507/2006 CM NO.9502/2010 (DELAY of 138 days) IN W.P.(C) 13768/2009 1. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submit that they have no objection if the present application is allowed. 2. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application and in view of the stand taken, delay in filing the review petition is condoned. 3. Applications stand disposed of. Review Pet. No.40/2010 in W.P.(C) 1424/2007 4. Three writ petitions, wherein entirely different reliefs were prayed, were disposed of by a common order dated 10.12.2009, against which the review petitions have been filed by the review petitioner, Delhi Agricultural Board Marketing, respondent no.7 in W.P.(C)No.1424/2007. While in W.P.(C)No.1424/2007, the petitioner sought a direction to respondent no.1, NDMC, to immediately remove the illegal encroachment on the pavement, road and footpath in and around the area of Jain Mandir Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi, the second petition being W.P.(C)No.15507/2006 was filed by Cut Flower Growers and Suppliers Association with a prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents ordering them W.P.(C)NO.873/2010 Page 3 of 5 to forthwith decide 517 applications already received pursuant to Board Resolution for categories A and B traders of Connaught Place Flower Market and also direct respondents to allot shop to the successful applicants/traders at Okhla as per Board Resolution dated 17.11.2004. The third petition, being W.P.(C)No.13768/2009, was filed by Phool Patti Utpadak Kalyan Samiti praying for issuance of a direction to respondents no.2 and 3 to grant licences to the members of the petitioner Samiti and also to allot a permanent site to enable them to carry out their business. 5. During the pendency of these matters an agreed order was passed on 10.12.2009 whereby it was agreed that flower mandis, carrying out their business at Baba Kharak Singh Marg, be shifted to Okhla Mandi. 6. By the present review petition, the review petitioner has prayed that flower mandis be shifted to Gazipur instead of Okhla. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1424/2007 submits that petitioners have no objection in case the review petition, filed by Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board is allowed for the reason that petitioners are only interested in shifting of mandi from the pavement, road and footpath in and around the area of Jain Mandir Lance Connaught Place, New Delhi. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi Flowers, Cutters, Growers and Suppliers Welfare Society (Regd.), Cut Flower Growers W.P.(C)NO.873/2010 Page 4 of 5 and Suppliers Association and Phool Patti Utpadak Kalyan Samiti (Regd.), submit that prayers made by the petitioner in the petition may be allowed as their clients are willing to give an undertaking to the court that no member of their association shall encroach on the pavements, roads and footpaths and the area in and around Jain Mandir Lane, Connaught Place, forthwith. Counsel further submit that in fact Jain Mandir Lane has already been barricaded by the police. Let a formal undertaking be filed in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. The statement made is accepted and the same shall be treated as undertaking to the court. 9. Accordingly, review petition is allowed. Rights of the respondents with respect to shifting of flower mandi are kept open. 10. Review petition stands disposed of. Review Pet. No.326/2010 in W.P.(C) 15507/2006 11. Mr. Rajiv Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15507/2006, submits that petitioners have no objection if the flower mandi is shifted from the existing site at Jain Mandir Lane, Babakharak Singh Marg, to Gazipur. Counsel further submits that all the licence holders have already taken possession. Counsel also submits that he has no objection if the order dated 10.12.2009 is recalled. 12. Accordingly, review petition is allowed. W.P.(C)NO.873/2010 Page 5 of 5 Review Pet. No.296/2010 in W.P.(C) 13768/2009. 13. Mr. Bahar-U-Barqi, learned counsel for the petitioner, opposes this review petition on the ground that his clients are willing to shift to Okhla Mandi and not to Gazipur Mandi. Mr. Barqi, Advocate, admits that the prayer made in this writ petition was with regard to grant of licences. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that application of some of the petitioners have been considered while application of some of the petitioners have been rejected. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner Samiti has no objection if the review petition is allowed keeping in view that there was no such prayer made in the writ petition, however, prays that the question with regard to shifting of flower mandi be kept open qua the petitioner, as the petitioner has already filed a substantive writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner also seeks liberty to take recourse to such other remedies which may be available to the petitioner in accordance with law in those cases where application has been rejected. Ordered accordingly. 15. Review Petition is allowed. Rights of the petitioner regarding shifting are kept open. G.S. SISTANI, J. April 25, 2011 'msr’