RAJIV KHANNA vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12330/2021
RAJIV KHANNA …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yugal Kishor Prasad, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …..Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, Standing Counsel along with Mr. Bhavishya Makhija, Advocates and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Licensing Inspector for MCD.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
O R D E R
% 01.08.2024
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with his tehbazari rights. The petitioner also prays that directions be issued to respondent nos.4 and 5 to pass an order for shifting of his tehbazari site.
2. The petitioner states that the father of Virender Kumar [initially arrayed as respondent no.2], that is, Kailash Chand was allotted tehbazari site described as Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh to Gali No.25, Beadon Pura, Backside, PS Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He states that subsequently the said tehbazari holder expired and the tehbazari site was allotted to him. He claims that he has been carrying on vending activities from Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh since 1982.
3. The petitioner alleges that his tehbazari rights are being interfered with by certain other persons in connivance with the respondents and the petitioner is not being permitted to peacefully vend from the given site.
4. The respondents have filed a status report on 04.05.2024 disputing the petitioners claim that he was allotted any tehbazari site in Karol Bagh. It is stated in the status report that the petitioner has been carrying on his vending activities from a site described as 12/21, C-Block, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. It is also stated that inspection of the aforesaid site was carried out by the Licensing Inspector on 01.05.2024 and was found that the aforementioned site exists. The respondents have also annexed photographs alongwith the status report to establish that vending activities are being carried out from the said site.
5. The petitioner has filed a reply disputing the contents of the status report. The petitioner asserts that he has not been carrying out any vending activities from the site mentioned in the status report 12/21, C-Block, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
6. The petitioner has also produced the receipt dated 13.12.1982 in support of his claim that he was carrying on vending activities from the said site in the year 1982. The said receipt is illegible and it is not possible to ascertain the petitioners name on the said receipt. More importantly, apart from the receipt dated 13.12.1982, which indicates that an amount of ?3.50 was paid; there are no other receipts or material on record which establish that the petitioner was paying any license fee for a tehbazari site at Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents also points out that the petitioner has annexed a receipt with his petition [as a part of Annexure P-4 (colly)] which indicates that the petitioner has paid a sum of ?3,520/- as tehbazari fee for Site No.12/21, Category-III, C-Block, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
8. The petitioner has also filed photographs to support his claim that he is carrying on vending activities from Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh and has also produced the Circular dated 06.06.2021 enclosing therewith list of street vendors that were to be shifted from Ajmal Khan Road. The said list indicates that one Kailash Chand son of Om Prakash was allotted a site at Khera Hospital and the proposed alternative site is referred to as Gali No.25, Beadon Pura, Backside, PS Karol Bagh. The same also mentions that the squatting site of Kailash Chand as Ajmal Khan Road. The name of the petitioner does not feature in the said Circular.
9. The respondents dispute that the photographs establish that the petitioner is carrying on vending activities at Ajmal Khan Road and, as noted above, they also dispute that the petitioner was in fact allotted any site at Ajmal Khan Road.
10. In view of the above, we are unable to accede to the prayers made in the present petition.
11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SACHIN DATTA, J
AUGUST 01, 2024
r
W.P.(C) 12330/2021 Page 2 of 2