$-t * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Dpte qthe.arinq.and Order: 23''d November, 201I + (1) W.P.(C) 80s9l20lr &, C.M.No. 18146120II SMT. SLMAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate _ ,'. versus IJOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (2) W.P.(C) 806012011 & C.M.No. 1814712011 ,;;;'f.T:i, Advocate vqrsus UOI AND ORS ..... Itespondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (3) W.P.(C) 806112011 & C.M.No. l8IsIlz}II -/ 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) 8rr3t20r1 & 182s3t201r BHARTI GUPTA ..... Petitioner rhrough: H*#ltri and Mr.Ajay rejpal, VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,806tr,81L3,8IL4,8LL5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &77Q5/20t1 Page 1 I \ v 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 (5) W.P.(C) gtr4l2011& r82sst20rr SHASHANK KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Joydeep Maz.umdar, Advocate + (6) w.P.(C) 8IIsl20I1 & C.M.No. 1825712011 AKLAKH RAHIM KHAN + (7) W.p.(C) 7077t20tr & r6rset20rr VINEET KIIMAR SHARMA Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS llOI AND ORS .... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner J> Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (8) w.P.(C) 707812011 & C.M.No. 16161120II TRILOCHAN SINGH BHATIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate versus ..... Respondents uol AND oRS rhrough: Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate w.P.(c)No.8059,8060,906i,8L\3,g'J.',J.4,8!!5,7077,7079,7079,7090,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &770s/20Lt Page2 + (9) w.P.(C) 707912011 & C.M.No. 1616312011 SUNITA KUMARI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate versus IJOI AND ORS ..... ResPondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (10)W.P.(C) 708012011 & C.M.No. 16r6sl20II KULDEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VCTSUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (1l)W.P.(C) 763412011 & C.M.No. 1729312011 ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VEISUS UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (12)W.P.(C) 763sl20Ll & C.M.No. 1729s120i1 ZONGPON LEPCHA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,8061,8L13,8LL4,8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, NEELMANI Il' 7703,7704 &77O512OI1) Page 3 + (13) W.P.(C) 763612011 & C.M.No. 172971201r SMT.MUMTAZ ""' Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ""' ResPondents Through: Mr.JpydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (14) W.P.(C) 770212011 & C.M.No. 1745612011 SHIVA NAND .."' Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.day Tejpal, Advocate VETSUS UOI AND ORS ..... ResPondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (1s) w.P.(C) 770312011 & C.M.No. 1745812011 ZURIP LAPCHA Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate VCTSUS UOI AND ORS ""' ResPondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (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 w.P.(c) No.8059,8060,8061, 81L3,81L4,8L15,7077,7078,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201L Page 4 + (17) w.P.(C) 770s12011 & Q.M.No. VINOD KUMAR Thrgugh: versus UOI AND ORS 17462120rr ..... Petitioner Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Advocate ..... Respondents Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local pup.tl may be allowed to see the judgrnent? | To be referred to Reporler gr not? I No. Whether the judgment should be I reported in the Digest? ) 2. aJ. SUNIL GAUR, J. (Oral) 7' 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 the case put forth 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-fi'om and now a days it is becorning increasingly difficult to rnake both ends meet due to" scant use of PCO booths and so they had made representation to respondents to pennit the petitioners to sell other W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,81L3,8LL4,8'1"15,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201r Page 5 ,/ miscellaneous items as well fiom their PCO booths. Few of the petitioners in this bunch of petitions are physical handicapped and their representation for permission to sell other items from the STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station was considered by the respondents and was rejected on 16.11 .2011by observing as under:- "As per the existing policy guidelines, STD/PCO Booths are allottedfor a specific purpose and booth holders cannot be permitted to und.ertake other activities. To sell additional items, multipurpose stalls are already available at the stations 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 court to the decision of the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 169911987 titled as Sudhir Madun & 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 Couft in the aforesaid decision is as under:- "The existing PCO booths will also be allowed to switch over to other trades as the PCOs have become outdated due to inception 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 permit the petitioners 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.8059,8060,8061,8t13,81L4,81.15,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/2011 Page 6 Circular dt. 14.5.2004 of the reqpondents 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 cases, the said period has already elapsed and by taking a humanitarian view extensions have been already granted in some cases 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 rnay. The question of extension of license granted to petitioners or to other sirnilarly placed PCO booth operators is not being considered in these petitions. What is being considered is whether in view of the rejection of 16fl' November, 20L1 of the representation of some of the petitioners, who were physically handicapped, whether the respondents can be called upon to consider afresh the clairn of the petitioners for switching. over to other trades in terms of the dicturn of the Apex Court as referued,to above. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents states flrat as and when such representations are received from the petitioners, the sarne would be considered by affording a hearing to the petitioners and by passing of a speaking order thereon within ,four weeks frorn the date of receipt of such representations. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions states that the comprehensive representations would be made to the respondents within foru 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 frorn the petitioners for switching over to other trades for W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,8061,8113,8114,8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703.,7704 &77O5/2O1L v PageT q view"r@ the remaining licensg period, the sarne would be considered in the dictum of the Apex Couft, as referred to above. 10. With aforesaid observations, these petitions as well as pending applicatiqns ?re disposed of with no orders as to costs. 11. A copy Af this grder be given dasti to cpunsel for both the sides. NOVEMBER 23,20Ll pkb W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8IL3,8114,81.L5,7077 ,7078,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, ,f (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE 7703,7704 &7705/2011 Page B