Mool Chand Sharma vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

Manmohan Sarin, J.—Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to comply with the order bearing No. F.1(S-7)/KV/Allot.L&B/97 dated 10.4.1997 issued in his favor.

This case has had a chequered history. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through number of documents, which may be briefly noticed:-

(i) One Sh. P.S. Oberoi was allotted shop No. 7, Kalyanvas, Delhi. Permission was further given to him to cover the open area behind Shop No. 7 with temporary structure at his own cost for clearing of wheat etc. Sh. P.S. Oberoi was carrying on the business of running of an Atta Chakki. Thereafter, Sh. P.S. Oberoi, entered into a partnership with present petitioner, Sh. Mool Chand Sharma. The intimation of the said partnership was given to the Under Secretary (Allotment) PWD and was accepted by the latter. The terms for the same were also communicated to the present petitioner, vide letter dated 18.8.1993. Thereafter, it appears a proposal for running of Fair Price Shop on the open space behind Shop No. 7 was under contemplation. Petitioner also conveyed his acceptance of all the terms and conditions. A license for running a Fair Price Shop was granted to the petitioner. This culminated in the letter dated 10.4.1997, of which the petitioner is seeking enforcement. Learned counsel submits that there was total inaction on the part of the respondents after allotment vide letter dated 10.4.1997. Hence, petitioner was constrained to file the present petition.

Ms. Pinki Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, very fairly admits that after the letter of 10.4.1997, there is no document on record either cancelling the said allotment or otherwise indicating any specific objection to the said allotment. However, on a perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondents seem to have an objection with regard to the payment being made only in the name of the petitioner, Sh. Mool Chand Sharma, which according to them should have been made through the firm M/s. Bharat Flour Mills and M/s. Bharat Kerosene Oil.

In my view, this factor alone cannot come in the way of relief being denied to the petitioner. Accordingly, let a writ of mandamus issue to the respondents, directing them to implement the letter dated 10.4.1997 (Annexure IX) within two months from today. The grant of above direction will not, in any manner, affect the respondents'' right to proceed against the petitioner in case of any infringement of the rules or terms of allotment.

The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions.