Din Bandhu Dass vs MCD and Others

Hima Kohli, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/contractor, who is running a canteen in the complex of respondent No.3/hospital situated at Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg, New Delhi, praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.1/MCD to return his articles seized by the department pursuant to a raid undertaken by the officers of the MCD on 04.07.2011. Counsel for the petitioner states that on 1.5.2011, the petitioner was awarded a contract for a period of one year to run a canteen in the respondent No.3/hospital. On 4.7.2011, some officials of the respondent No.1/MCD had visited the premises of respondent No.3/hospital and dismantled the entire kiosk of the petitioner and taken away the counter, cooked food items, utensils, etc. Immediately thereupon, the petitioner had approached the Director of the respondent No.3/hospital and apprised him of the events that had taken place on 4.7.2011 and requested that the matter be taken up with the respondent No.1/MCD.

It is the stand of the petitioner that after respondent No.3/hospital was apprised of the aforesaid action taken by the respondent No.1/MCD, it addressed a letter dated 27.8.2011 to the MCD enclosing therewith a copy of the letter dated 6.7.2011 addressed by the petitioner to hospital, and requested it to release the seized articles to the petitioner. Further, respondent No.1/MCD was requested to remove the unauthorized vendors, who were operating their business from outside the main gate of the hospital complex. Counsel for the petitioner states that the present petition was occasioned on account of failure on the part of respondent No.1/MCD to respond to the aforesaid request made on his behalf by the respondent No.3/hospital.

Notice was issued on the present petition, vide order dated 23.12.2011, and a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1/MCD on 14.2.2012. In its counter affidavit, respondent No.1/MCD has averred that the petitioner/contractor has defaulted in complying with the terms and conditions of the allotment of the canteen as stipulated by the respondent No.3/hospital, particularly Clause No.8 thereof, whereunder he was required to abide by the municipal rules relating to sale of edibles and beverages and to obtain a municipal licence from the competent authority. It is averred that as the petitioner had failed to obtain any licence from the respondent No.1/MCD, he could not be permitted to sell edible items within the hospital complex. It is further averred that the petitioner was found running his trade outside the allotted site within the hospital complex, by placing tables open to sky in an unhygienic condition, and as per Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the allotment, the petitioner was not permitted to use LPG cylinder in three outlets, i.e., in OPD, near OT outlets and the outlet near parking. Despite the same, he was found to be using an LPG cylinder to cook food at the aforesaid site from where he could only have sold the prepared food by re-heating the items as prescribed by respondent No.3/hospital. It is thus stated that the petitioner was challaned on 13.9.2011 for running the trade without a licence and in an unhygienic condition.

Lastly, it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent/MCD that the articles that were seized at the site on 04.07.2011 by the officers of respondent No.1/MCD, were not released to the petitioner at the representation forwarded by the respondent No.3/hospital for the reason that as per the applicable rules, seized articles can only be released upon an application to be submitted by the owner of the articles and that the petitioner who owned the articles had not submitted any such representation to the respondent No.1/MCD.

Counsel for the petitioner states that if the non-release of the articles seized by the respondent No.1/MCD is only because it had not received any application directly from the petitioner, he shall submit an application to the respondent No.1/MCD for the release of the aforesaid articles within one week. Counsel for the petitioner further states that the contract granted by the respondent No.3/hospital to the petitioner expires at the end of this month and if the petitioner succeeds in a tender that is likely to be floated by the hospital in May 2012 for running the aforesaid canteen in its premises, he shall apply to the respondent No.1/MCD for obtaining a health trade licence for selling edibles/food articles from the canteen.

In view of the aforesaid submission, it is directed that upon the petitioner submitting such a request to the respondent No.1/MCD, it shall process the same as per law, and release the seized articles to him within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such a request. As regard the directions sought by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/MCD to take action for removal of the unauthorized hawkers/kiosks from outside the complex of the respondent No.3/hospital, counsel for respondent No.1/MCD assures the Court MCD has been regularly taking such removal action in the area and shall continue to undertaking such an exercise in future also on a regular basis. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, along with the pending application, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.