W.P. (C) Nos. 1176/2010 & 12166/2009 Page 1 45&24 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1176/2010 SH.NAND KISHOR & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ninad Laud & Mr. Jayant Mohan, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR...... Respondents Through Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. + W.P.(C) 12166/2009 NAND KISHOR AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ninad Laud & Mr. Jayant Mohan, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR .. Respondents Through Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 24.02.2010 1. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, it is stated that the show cause notice issued by the respondent-MCD amounts to over-reaching the order dated 28th October, 2005 passed by the Supreme Court. Secondly, it is stated that the W.P. (C) Nos. 1176/2010 & 12166/2009 Page 2 respondents have already pre-decided the issue and the show cause notice is merely an empty formality. 2. The petitioners herein were in occupation of shops at Parcel Office, Kodia Pul, Old Delhi Railway Station, Delhi. The said shops were acquired for Delhi Metro Transport System and the petitioners were dispossessed. There was a proposal that the petitioners should be allotted alternative accommodation/plots in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. A resolution to the same effect was ratified by the Municipal Council on 25th October, 2004. 3. Some of the teh bazari holders/hawkers operating in Lajpat Nagar area had filed applications and contempt applications before the Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 1699/1987 titled Sudhir Madan and Others versus MCD and Others. It appears that some orders were also passed by the Supreme Court in that petition/applications. The petitioners herein filed an application in the said petition as Municipal Corporation had refused to hand over possession of the plots to the petitioners because of pendency of the said petition and interim order passed by the Supreme Court. This application was disposed of vide order dated 28th October, 2005, which reads as under:- “I.A. No…../05 in IA 394 In IA 356 In WP(C) 1699/87: The applicants in this application are persons who were having shops near the old Delhi Railway Station. They had to be shifted from there on account of construction of the Delhi Metro. By resolution of the Standing Committee dated 7th July, 2004 they were allotted alternative site in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-II New Delhi. This resolution has been ratified by the Municipal Council on 25th October, 2004. However, in view of the order of this Court dated 9th August, 2004 the W.P. (C) Nos. 1176/2010 & 12166/2009 Page 3 Municipal Corporation has not handed over the possession of the lands in question to the applicants. The petitioners in IA 394 namely, Ram Swaroop & Ors. have objected on the ground that they held licenses to hold tehbazari in Lajpat Nagar area but they have been shifted on account of bomb blast. They have claimed that they should be allotted alternative sites for their Business. We will consider what relief should be granted to petitioners-Ram Swaroop and Ors. But we find no reason why Nand Kishor and Ashok Kumar the applicants should not be given possession of the lands allotted to them. We, therefore, permit the Municipal Corporation to issue necessary orders to hand over possession of lands allotted to them. So far as the case of the petitioners in IA 394 is concerned, we will later consider directing the Municipal Corporation to give alternative sites to them if any alternative site is available. However, the applicants in IA 394 are permitted to assist the municipal authorities to locate possible available sites in the areas of their choice, and if possible, the Municipal Corporation may take appropriate steps in accordance with law to allot them alternative sites notwithstanding the pendency of their application. List the matters on 28th October, 2005.” 4. The Supreme Court by the aforesaid order had clarified that Municipal Corporation of Delhi was at liberty to hand over possession of the plots to the applicants therein, the petitioners herein. It is wrong to interpret the said order as a direction given by the Supreme Court to Municipal Corporation of Delhi to make the allotment to the petitioners. It is also wrong to suggest that MCD should approach the Supreme Court as it wants modification or clarification of any direction given by the aforesaid W.P. (C) Nos. 1176/2010 & 12166/2009 Page 4 order. The subject matter of the application before the Supreme Court was limited and the petitioners had sought clarification that allotment made by MCD should not be denied on account of stay orders passed in the said petitions. The Supreme Court permitted Municipal Corporation of Delhi to allot sites to the petitioners, in spite of petition/applications pending before them. 5. The second contention of the petitioners is also misconceived. Allotments have been made and the petitioners have been in possession of land since 2005. It, however, transpires that enquiries have been conducted by the respondents in respect of certain illegalities in the said allotment. The petitioners have enclosed with the writ petition Annexure P-8, which gives some details of the enquiries conducted by the respondents. On the basis of the enquiries, the respondents have now issued show cause notice to the petitioners dated 17th February, 2010. The petitioners have been given an opportunity to reply to the said show cause notice. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, it is obvious that the respondents will pass an order dealing with the contentions raised. 6. I do not think it will be appropriate for this Court to interfere and interject with the proceedings initiated by the respondents by issue of show cause notice. The petitioners will be at liberty to challenge and question adverse order, if any, after the same is passed. However, to protect the interest of the petitioners, adverse order will not be given effect to for a period of fifteen days to enable the petitioners to redress their grievance. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 24, 2010 VKR