Trilochan Singh Bhatia v. Union of India and Anr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date o(hearing and Order: 23rd November, 2011 + (1) W.P.(C) 8059/2011 & C.M.No. 18146/2011 SMT. SUMAN + (2) W.P.(C) 8060/2011 & C.M.No. 18147/2011 NIRAJ KUMAR + (3) W.P.(C) 8061/2011 & C.M.No. 1815112011 SIDBLAL SINGH + (4) W.P.(C) 8113/2011 & 18253/2011 BHARTI GUPTA W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8113, 8114, 8115, 7077, 7078, 7079, 7080, 7634, 7635, 7636, 7702, Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. + (5) W.P.(C) 8114/2011 & 18255/2011 SHASHANK KUMAR GUPTA + (6) W.P.(C) 8115/2011 & C.M.No. 18257/2011 AKLAKH RAHIM KHAN . + (7) W.P.(C) 7077/2011 & 16159/2011 VINEET KUMAR SHARMA Mr.Joydeep Mazlimdar, Advocate + (8) W.P.(C) 7078/2011 & C.M.No. 16161/2011 TRILOCHAN SINGH BRA TIA W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8113, 8114, 8115, 7077, 7078, 7079, 7080, 7634, 7635, 7636, 7702, Page 2 + (9) W.P.(C) 7079/2011 & C.M.No. 16163/2011 SUNITA KUMARI + (lO)W.P.(C) 7080/2011 & C.M.No. 16165/2011 KULDEEP SINGH + (11)W.P.(C) 7634/2011 & C.M.No. 17293/2011 NEELMANI + (12)W.P.(C) 7635/2011 & C.M.No. 17295/2011 ZONGPON LEPCHA W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8113, 8114, 8115, 7077, 7078, 7079, 7080, 7634, 7635, 7636, 7702, Page 3 + (13) W.P.(C) 7636/2011 & C.M.No. 17297/2011 SMT.MUMT AZ + (14) W.P.(C) 7702/2011 & C.M.No. 17456/2011 SHIV A NAND + (15) W.P.(C) 7703/2011 & C.M.No. 17458/2011 ZURIP LAPCHA Petitioner + (16) W.P.(C) 7704/2011 & C.M.No. 17460/2011 MAHINDER SINGH W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8113, 8114, 8115, 7077, 7078, 7079, 7080, 7634, 7635, 7636, 7702, Page 4 miscellaneous items as well from their PCO booths. Few of the petitioners in this bunch of petitions are physical handicapped and their representation for permission to sell other items from the STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station was considered by the respondents and was rejected on 16.11.2011 by observing as under:-

¶3"As per the existing policy guidelines, STDIPCO Booths are allotted for a specific purpose and booth holders cannot be permitted to undertake other activities. To sell additional items, multipurpose stalls are already available at the stations which provide better facility to passengers. Therefore, the request for selling additional items from these booths is not considered desirable. The fate of the representations of the petitioners under the general category, who are running STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station, has not yet been decided by the respondents.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this court to the decision of the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 1699/1987 titled as Sudhir Madan & Ors vs. M.C.D. & Ors., decided on 6.2.2007, wherein the issue of existing PCO Booths being allowed to switch over to other trade was considered and what was said by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision is as under:- "The existing PCO booths will also be allowed to switch over to other trades as the PCOs have become outdated due to inception or mobile phones/cordless phones."

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioners states that m v1ew of the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court the respondents are duty bound to permit the petitioners to switch over to other trades as running of PCO booths at the Railway stations is a losing proposition. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court to a W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8113, 8114, 8115, 7077, 7078, 7079, 7080, 7634, 7635, 7636, 7702, Page 6 Circular dt. 14.5.2004 of the respondents and in particular to clause 8.7 thereof, which stipulatesthat the maximumperiod for running of such boothis 10years and it is statedthat in mostof the cases,the saidperiod has already elapsed and by taking a humanitarianview extensionshave been already granted in some cases and now, if any extension would be granted, the same would be in terms of the aforesaid Circular which holds the field as of today.

¶6Be that as it may. The question of extension of license granted to petitioners or to other similarly placed PCO booth operators is not being considered in these petitions. What is being considered is whether in view of the rejectionof 16"^ November, 2011 of the representationof some of the petitioners, who were physically handicapped, whether the respondents can be called upon to consider afresh the claim of the petitioners for switching over to other trades in terms of the dictum of the Apex Court as referred to above.

¶7Learned counsel for the respondents states that as and when such representations are received from the petitioners, the same would be considered by affording a hearing to the petitioners and by passing of a speaking order thereon within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representations.

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions states that the comprehensiverepresentationswould be made to the respondentswithin four weeks.

¶9While leaving the question of extension of license to the PCO booth operatorsopen, these writ petitionsare disposedof with direction to the respondents that as and when the respondents receive representations from the petitioners for switching over to other trades for W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060,8061,8113, 8114,8115,7077,7078, 7079,7080, 7634,7635,7636, 7702, 7703,7704&7705/2011 Page 7 the remaining license period, the same would be considered in view of the dictum of the Apex Court, as referred to above.

¶10With aforesaid observations, these petitions as well as pending applications are disposed of with no orders as to costs.

¶11A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for both the sides. NOVEMBER 23, 2011 pkb W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8113, 8114, 8115, 7077, 7078, 7079, 7080, 7634, 7635, 7636, 7702, Page 8