SMT. PRADEEP KAUR vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 354/2024 & CM APPL. 26302-26304/2024
SMT. PRADEEP KAUR ….. Appellant
Through: Appellant in person
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Puja Kalra, Advocate for R-1 and 2
% Date of Decision: 06th May, 2024
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)
CM APPL. 26302-03/2024(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the present applications stand disposed of.
LPA 354/2024
3. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the then High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which stands extended to the High Court of Delhi, challenging the Order dated 06th March, 2024, passed in WP(C) 13871/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Appellants prayer for the grant of monetary compensation by Respondents.
4. Brief facts of the present case are that the Appellant was the owner of a Chef Cart (Food vending van) bearing no. DL-1LC-1259, which was parked at a site opposite to Shop no. 41, Jack and Jill Restaurant, near MCD Park and Momo Corner, D-Block, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar- II, New Delhi. The Appellant contends that she has been granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the Traffic Police and also received a recommendation from the Mayor, MCD for setting up the said Cart under the policy which was prevalent in 2007.
4.1. It is stated that vide Order dated 29th September, 2015, Respondent No. 2 informed the Appellant that the Mayor, SDMC vide his Order dated 21st September, 2015 has decided not to grant Health Trade License to Appellants Chef Cart under the prevalent policy which came into effect in the year 2008 and further directed the Appellant to remove her Chef Cart from the aforesaid site.
4.2. It is stated that on 03rd October, 2015, Respondent No. 2 forcibly removed the Appellants Chef Cart from the aforesaid site and demolished the same. It is stated that the action of Respondents in withholding the license and forcibly removing the Chef Cart was illegal and the same has caused monetary losses to the Appellant.
4.3. It is stated that aggrieved by the said actions of Respondent No. 2, the Appellant herein filed the underlying writ petition seeking issuance of a decree of compensatory monetary damages for loss of livelihood.
4.4. Though in the said writ petition, the Appellant had initially sought directions to the Respondents for the grant of a Health Trade License in addition to compensatory damages, however, subsequently she elected to confine her relief in the writ petition only to compensatory damages.
5. By impugned Order dated 06th March, 2024, the learned Single Judge after observing that the case involves several disputed factual issues, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition and granted liberty to the Appellant to file a Civil Suit for her claim for damages or any other appropriate relief.
6. Aggrieved by the said impugned Order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.
7. The Appellant, who appears in person, states that she was wrongly denied the grant of Health Trade License by Respondents vide decision dated 21st September, 2015 communicated on 29th September, 2015. She states that non-grant of license is in violation of the orders passed by this Court from time to time in W.P(C) 4232/2015. She states that she is entitled to compensation for the damages suffered by her on account of the investments made by her in setting up the Chef Cart. She states that her claim for compensation in the writ petition emanates from admitted facts and the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition and adjudicated the claim for compensation.
8. In reply, learned standing counsel for Respondents states that non-grant of Health Trade License to the Appellant was in accordance with the then prevalent policy of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) i.e., Respondent No. 1. She states that the Appellant was first called upon to remove the Chef Cart from the site and cautioned that if the Appellant fails to remove the same, the Respondent will be compelled to remove the same in the interest of Public Health. She states that therefore, the Respondent has acted bona fide and does not admit to any wrongdoing which would make it liable for compensation. She states the Appellant was wrongfully operating the Chef Cart without the Health Trade License and even after the communication of the rejection of the Health Trade license vide communication dated 29th September, 2015.
9. Having heard the Appellant and the learned standing counsel for Respondents, we are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The Appellant in the writ petition is only seeking compensatory damages on the plea that she was wrongfully denied the Health Trade License by Respondents and her Chef Cart was illegally demolished. The Respondents have contested the said allegation and asserted that the non-grant of the Health Trade License was in conformity with the prevalent policy and the Chef Cart was removed in the interest of Public Health after the Appellant refused to remove it despite notice issued by the Respondents calling upon her to remove the same.
10. The Appellant has quantified the alleged damages at Rs. 5 crores towards lost opportunities and irreparable losses incurred by her. The Appellant has available to her the efficacious remedy of filing a civil suit to prove the claim for alleged losses in accordance with law. However, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the disputed monetary claims of the Appellant cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction.
11. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed along with applications. The Appellant is at liberty to avail a remedy in accordance with the impugned order dated 06th March, 2024.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MAY 6, 2024/hp/MG
LPA 354/2024 Page 1 of 5