Niraj Kumar v. UOI and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofhearing and Order: 23"'November,2011 + (1) W.P.(C) 8059/2011 & C.M.No. 18146/2011 SMT. SUMAN Mi-.A.Maitriand Mi-.AjayTejpal, MrJoydeep Mazumdar, Advocate + (2) W.P.(C) 8060/2011 & C.M.No. 18147/2011 NIRAJ KUMAR + (3) W.R(C) 8061/2011 & C.M.No. 18151/2011 SHIBLAL SINGH Mr.A.Maitri and Mi'.Ajay Tejpal, + (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, 7703,7704 &7705/2011 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 SHASHANIC KUMAR GUPTA MrJoydeep Mazumdar, Advocate + (6) W.P.(C) 8115/2011 & C.M.No. 18257/2011 AKLAKH RAHIM I<CHAN Mi-Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate + (7) W.P.(C) 7077/2011 & 16159/2011 VINEET KUMAR SHARMA + (8) W.P.(C) 7078/2011 & C.M.No. 16161/2011 TRILOCHAN SINGH BHATIA W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061,8113, 8114,8115, 7077, 7078, 7079,7080, 7634,7635, 7636, 7702, 7703,7704&7705/2011 Page 2 + (9) W.P.(C) 7079/2011 & C.M.No. 16163/2011 SUNITA KUMARI Mi-.A.Maitriand Mr.Ajay Tejpal, MrJoydeep Mazumdar, Advocate L + (lO)W.P.(C) 7080/2011 & C.M.No. 16165/2011 KULDEEP SINGH Mi'.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, + (ll)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, 7703,7704&7705/2011 Page3 + (13) W.P.(C)7636/2011& C.M.No. 17297/2011 SMT.MUMTAZ Mr.A.MaitriandMr.AjayTejpal, + (14) W.P.(C) 7702/2011 & C.M.No. 17456/2011 SHIVA NAND + (15) W.P.(C) 7703/2011 &C.M.NO. 17458/2011 ZURIP LAPCHA + (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 + (17) W.P.(C) 7705/2011 & C.M.No. 17462/2011 VINOD KUMAR Mi-.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be refen^ed to Reporter or not?

¶2I No. Whether the judgment should be

¶3reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR. J. (Oral)

¶1The relief sought in this bunch of 17 petitions is to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners who are rurming PCO Booth at the Railway Station to sell other miscellaneous items to properly earn their livelihoodas the case put forth by the petitionersis that mnning of PCO booth is a losing propositionnow a days with the wide-spreaduse of mobile phones and cordless phones, etc.

¶2Petitioners claim that they are mnning the STD/ISD PCO booth since the year 1991 onwards and are earning their livelihood there-from and now a days it is becoming increasingly difficult to make both ends meet due to scant use of PCO booths and so they had made representation to respondents to permit the petitioners to sell other W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8113,8114, 8115,7077, 7078, 7079, 7080,7634,7635, 7636,7702, Page 5 miscellaneous items as well from their PCO booths. Few of the petitionersin this bunch of petitionsare physicalhandicappedand their representationfor permissionto sell other items from the STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station was consideredby the respondentsand was rejected on 16.11.2011 by observing as under "As per the existingpolicy guidelines, STD/PCO Booths are allottedfor a specificpurpose and booth holders cannot hepermitted 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. \

¶3The fate of the representations of the petitioners under the general categoiy, 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 6.22Q01, 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 in view 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 stipulates that the maximum period for mnning of such booth is 10 years and it is stated that in most of the cases, the said period has already elapsed and by taking a humanitarian view extensions have 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 comprehensive representations would be made to the respondents within four weeks.

¶9• While leaving the question of extension of license to the PCO booth operators open, these writ petitions are disposed of 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, Page 7 '• J the remaininglicenseperiod,the same would be consideredin 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 gaur) JUDGE W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8113, 8114, 8115,7077, 7078, 7079, 7080,7634, 7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/2011 Page8