Delhi High Court – Orders
Meghna Rajendra Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 January, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 19/2025 and CM APPLs. 1524-26/2025
MEGHNA RAJENDRA KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr Chandan Kumar with Mr Dinesh
K. Tiwary and Mr Shubham Rai,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Akash Chatterjee with Mr Chetan
Jadon, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER
% 13.01.2025
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated
18.07.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) 16213/2023 captioned Meghna Rajendra Kumar v. Union
of India & Others.
2. The appellant had filed the said petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, impugning Clause 11 of the Commercial Circular
No.20/2017 dated 27.02.2017 in respect of the Catering Policy 2017. In
terms of the said catering policy, the term of ‘minor units’ allocated to the
various licensees was confined to a period of five years.
3. The appellant was allotted various (16 in number) Catering Stalls at
various Railway Stations of Western Railway, North Western Railway,
South Eastern Railway and West Central Division for catering services,
however, the present appeal is confined to the unit described as Catering
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2025 at 21:21:15
Stall (Category-GMU/Women) on Platform No.4/5 on Raika side (Second
from Raika Bagh side).
4. The Commercial Circular dated 27.02.2017 was the subject matter of
challenge in a batch of petitions as well, which was rejected by the learned
Single Judge. The said decision was also upheld by the Division Bench of
this court. The said matters then travelled to the Supreme Court. However,
the Supreme Court also declined to interfere with the judgments passed by
this court. Although, in some cases, the Supreme Court also granted further
four months’ time to the allottees to hand over their respective units.
5. Admittedly, the appellant is required to vacate the units licenced to
her on expiry of the licence term. However, the learned Single Judge as
well as this court had in matters granted the allottees further time of three
months to vacate the same. And as stated above, the Supreme Court had
allowed further period of four months over and above the time granted by
this court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on the
principle of parity, the appellant may also be granted additional four
months’ time to vacate the unit. It is seen that the learned Single Judge had
in terms of the impugned order granted three months’ time from the expiry
of licence period to the appellant to vacate the respective units. However,
the appellant submits that a further period of four months may be granted
from the expiry of said period of three months in parity with the other
petitioners. She has also handed over a copy of the order dated 09.01.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 203/2025 captioned Smt.
Manju Jaiswal v. Union of India & Ors., where on the principle of parity,
seven months extension was granted to the petitioner in that case.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2025 at 21:21:15
7. The learned counsel for the appellant further assures this court that no
further time would be sought and submits an undertaking to the said effect
as well as to the effect that she would vacate and handover the unit to the
concerned authorities on or before expiry of the additional period of four
months as sought, would be furnished.
8. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of by granting the
appellant further four months extension to handover the allocated units to
the concerned authorities. We, however, clarify that this order would be
operative on the appellant furnishing an undertaking to this court to the
effect as noted above within a period of one week from today with an
advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondents.
9. It is clarified that if the undertaking is not filed within the aforesaid
period, the respondents will be at liberty to take steps to forthwith evict the
appellant from the said units as the license term has expired and the
appellant has not filed an undertaking as required for availing the benefit of
the extension granted by the learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned
order.
10. Pending applications shall also stand disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
JANUARY 13, 2025/tr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2025 at 21:21:15
[ad_1]
Source link