WPC No.2114/2007 Page 1 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2114/2007 % Date of decision 15th February, 2010 MEHTA TAXI & TRAVEL SERVICE & ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Shyam Moorjani, advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, advocate for MCD. Mr.Sumer Kumar Sethi, advocate for DDA. Ms. Sana Ansari, advocate for R.1-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 1. Status report is taken on record. 2. The petitioners herein pray for direction to restrain the respondents from removing their taxi stand site from the vacant land near Vasant Apartment playground opposite Vasant Niketan, Vasant Lok, New Delhi without providing them with an alternative site in the vicinity. They have challenged the conduct of the respondents in removing their taxi stand on 6th July, 2007. 3. Respondent-MCD in their counter affidavit has stated that they had granted NOC dated 8th May, 1996 for notification of a general taxi stand to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Trafic) and the said respondent was receiving tehbazari fee from the WPC No.2114/2007 Page 2 petitioners. Respondent-DDA in their counter affidavit had taken a contradictory stand and stated that the taxi stand was unauthorizedly operating from the green land-the site in question. It was further stated that the said land on which the taxi stand is located is an acquired land and vests with the DDA. It is further stated that DDA did not make any allotment or give permission for a taxi stand or travel agency at the said site. 4. In view of the contradictory stand taken by the MCD and the DDA, vide order dated 15th January, 2010, it was directed that a meeting would be held. Pursuant to the said Order, a joint meeting were held in the Chamber of Chief Legal Officer (DDA) on 2nd February, 2010 and 10th February, 2010. Thereafter, a joint survey was also conducted and it was unanimously resolved that the land/site in question belongs to the DDA and not to MCD. Admittedly, DDA has not issued NOC or any consent letter permitting operation and setting up a taxi stand. Resultantly, NOC issued by the MCD is of no consequence as MCD is not the owner of the said land and is not entitled to issue NOC in respect of the said land. 5. I have also examined the order dated 7th April, 1997 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Delhi. The said order is not addressed to a particular individual/person. It authorizes parking of five taxis in the said site. No particular person can claim any right to park their taxi to the exclusion of others in terms of the said WPC No.2114/2007 Page 3 order. It is apparent that some taxi drivers had occupied the said area, as is clear from the photographs filed by the petitioner themselves after the demolition action. This was not the purport and purpose behind the order dated 7th April, 1997. DLT taxis are meant for benefit of citizens of Delhi and taxis are required to move around and when they are vacant and available for hire they can be parked at the earmarked parking spaces available all over Delhi. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) in their counter affidavit have clarified this aspect by stating that the taxi stands are not notified in the name of a particular individual and nor any licence to any individual to possess and control the site has been granted. But this was precisely what was happening. The present writ petition has been filed by Mehta Taxi and Travel Services and others as if they have individual or personal right to exclusively occupy and permanent park their taxis. Photographs placed on record by the petitioners show that the respondent-DDA had taken action of removing/demolishing the permanent structures constructed by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been using the taxi stand since 1997. The said argument cannot be accepted for the reason that no particular individual has been granted licence by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Trafic) to park taxis. By order dated 7th April, 1997, the area/site in question was earmarked for general parking of five WPC No.2114/2007 Page 4 taxis. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to drive taxis and earn their livelihood. The said rights are not being denied to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to drive taxis and earn their livelihood. The only question raised in the present case is whether the petitioners are entitled to occupy the said site in question as per the order dated 7th April, 1997 and treat the same as their own personal parking lot. This is not permitted and allowed. Moreover, DDA has claimed ownership of the said land and it is now accepted by the MCD that DDA is the owner of the said land/site in question. DDA has also stated that the Vasant Apartment Residents Welfare Association had written to the Lt.Governor, Vice Chairman, DDA and Commissioner of Police for removal of the taxi stand from the site in question. It is stated that the land in question is green land and cannot be used for commercial activities as per the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, as clarified above, the petitioners will be entitled to operate their individual taxis and park their taxis at any of the earmarked general parking spots meant for taxis in Delhi. No costs. DASTI. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 15, 2010 P