IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI :3

11188
Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF :

RABI GHOSH ..... PETITIONER

i
I VERSUS
!
I
I

I NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ... RESPONDENT

I MEMO OF PARTIES
I• Rabi Ghosh
I
j Slo Late Sh. Bikramjit Ghosh
~
~
R/o- 27, Main Market, 1st Floor,
"':
Lodhi Colony, New Delhl-t t 0003

"
r:
{I Email-ghoshrabi216@gmail.com
Mob-981 0014123 .... Petitioner

I
i
i
;
I

Versus

New Delhi Municipal Council

(Through its Chairman)
NDMC Head Office
Palika Kendra, ',~W~I
Parliament Street, New Delhi-11 0003 ... Respondent

Filed by:

(RAKESH MITTAL)
Advocate
JlA.ST U=,c;AL
0-118, LGF, Defence Colony
New Delhi New Delhi -110024
Dated: Mob.: 9999303080
Email-advrakeshmittal@gmail.com
 SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES

By way of present petition, Petitioner seeks kind indulgence of this

Hon'ble Court for protection of his fundamental right to livelihood
guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is a
senior citizen and is a licencee of shop-cum-flat No. 27, Main Market, Lodhi
Road, New Oelhi (hereinafter referred to the "said property") since
11.04.1997. Petitioner has been running his business from the said property
uninterruptedly for last more than two decades. The licence of the said
property had been renewed by the Respondent NOMC from time to time.
Most of the times, the licence
,
of the Petitioner had been renewed by the
Respondent, ex post "facto e.g. vide letter dated 04.04.2006, NOMC
',\.tL·f '

approved renewal of the licence of the Petitioner's shop from 02.02.2002 till
31.03.2005.

On the basis of a letter dated 01.09.2014 issued by HOB Financial

Services, NOMC issued a show cause notice dated 20.10.2014 to the
Petitioner which was duly replied by the Petitioner along with a letter (dated
13.11.2014) issued by HOB,Financial Services Limited clearly stating that
the subject property ~a;~never mortgaged' by the petitioner under any loan.
Apparently, since the NOMC was satisfied with the reply filed by the
Petitioner, no action was taken by the NOMC till 01.03.2017, when another
show cause notice was issued alleging that the subject property was
mortgaged with financial institutions. Nevertheless, the said letter which
was issued by HOB Financial Services was duly clarified by HOB financial
Services repeatedly vide letters dated 13.11.2014 (whereby it was clarified
that the subject prop~ny .was not mortgaged by the Petitioner under any
loan), letter dated 21.11.2017 (the loan against which the said property was
shown to be mortgaged was fully repaid and closed and details of the
property mortgaged, against the said loan was different from the subject
property was mentioned). 24.12.2018(ln reply to the letter dated 27.11.2018
issued by NOMC, HOB Financial Services Limited confirmed that letter
dated 13.11.2014 was issued by HOB Financial Services Limited).
16.09.2019 (Confirmation of the letter dated 13.11.2014 and 24.12.2018
-t~-.;r~2· .
HOB Financial Services Limited further regretted for the inconvenience and
confusion caused to NOMC and to the Petitioner due to negligence of one
of their staff members). Petitioner replied to the second show cause notice
clearly stating that the subject property at no point of time has been
mortgaged with any financial institutions.

-, \

·":C"rt';. ..~~
 s/
NDMC preferred an eviction petition under Section 5 & 7 of Public Premises
',.,'

Act which came to be dismissed by the Ld. Estate Officer vide order dated
12.03.2019 after a detailed enquiry.

Aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Estate Officer,

NDMC preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act
before the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Saket, New Delhi which was
also dismissed on merits vide order dated 01.02.2020. Petitioner has given
several representations to the Respondent NDMC since 24.03.2015. In
August 2020, Petitioner has been served with an advance copy of
C.M.(Main) which has not been listed till date. In the said CI\I1(M) the
Respondent has taken following new pleas (a) that the subject property had
been attached by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ex. Petition 155/2016 (b)
an MoU dated 25.09.2017 has been executed between the Petitioner and
the Decree Holder. \y);.,The .subject property has been handed over by the
Petitioner to the Decree Holder as recorded in order dated 26.10.2017. It is
respectfully submitted that the Decree Holder had misrepresented the
subject property was owned by the Petitioner and accordingly, the same
was attached in the execution proceedings. Further vide order dated
30.07.2018 the attachment was withdrawn by this Hon'ble Court.
Furthermore, the MoU dated 25.09.2017 was never acted upon and the
, '

same stood cancelled vide cancellation deed dated 03.09.2020 (which is a

:~Y;i(.... l • .

part of the execution proceedings). Furthermore, the wrong averment with

regard to the possession being handed over by the Petitioner to the Decree
Holder has been clarified vide order dated 21.10.2020 passed in execution
proceedings. The cancellation deed dated 03.09.2020 was also taken on
record. In the circumstances, there is/was no impediment in renewal of the
licence deed of the subject property in favour of the Petitioner. Petitioner
made a detailed representation dated 02.11.2020 to NDMC narrating all the
facts and circumstant~i~nd req'Uested for renew the Licence Deed of the
Petitioner for the subject property, which had not been considered till date
by the Respondent.

Petitioner did not prefer to challenge/quasll of tile show cause notice dated
20.10.2014 and 01.03.2017 issued by the NDMC, earlier for the reason that
the show cause notice dated 20.10.2014 was never perused by NDMC after
receiving a reply of the Petitioner as also and the Respondent NDMC have
been renewing the licence of tile Petitioner retrospectively even after expiry
of the same several years ago. Furthermore, the show cause notice dated
01.03.2017 has been held to be illegal by two courts below. The perusal of
t
the show cause notice would clearly establish that the same has been
issued with a mala .flde intention of depriving the Petitioner from his
,
legitimate right of livelihood. As also the Petitioner did not prefer this
petition earlier as the Petitioner was comprehensive if tile Petitioner would
initiate litigation, he may have to face the wrath of NOMC. The Petitioner
expected that once the Ld. Estate Officer had dismissed the eviction petition
filed by the NOMC, the Respondent would renew the licence deed of the
Petitioner. Petitioner further expected that after the dismissal of the appeal
vide order dated 01.02,~p20, the Respondent would renew the licence deed
.' ~. : ,1 ...." I

of the subject property of the Petitioner. The appeal under Section 9 of the
Public Premises Act was filed by the NOMC before the Ld. District and
Sessions Judge with delay. It is further respectfully submitted that the
licence deed of the property of the other similarly situated persons have
been renewed by NOMC from time to time. The policy/circular dated
16.08.2014 of the Respondent allows renewal of the licence deed even to
the subsequent purchase~~.. The Petitioner is original allottee of the subject
property.

The Petitioner had invested a sum of Rs. 40 lakh in the subject property for
renovation after obtaining necessary permissions from NOMC in the year
2013. The licence of the Petitioner has not been renewed since 15t April
2015 and the various permissions to run the hotel of the Petitioner, have not
been granted in the absence of renewal of the licence deed. The Petitioner
has been regularly paying the licence fee, electricity charges and water
~:~.(

charges to NOMC against the bills raised by NOMC till March 2020.

In the circumstances, Petitioner seeks kind indulgence of this Hon'ble Court

to restore his right and direct to the Respondent/NOMC to renew his licence
deed with retrospective effect for a period of 10 years.

11.04.1997 PetitioneriI,. and

'.
one Sh. Ani! Jain were granted License
~

for the Property Bearing Shop-cum-Flat No. 27, Main

Market Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Initially it was granted for
a period from 11.04.1997 to 02.02.2002
04.04.2006 Respondent approved deemed renewal of license from
02.02.2002 till 31.03.2005 "This Deemed renewal upto
31.03.2005 is on the presumption that there were no
 i.'·.·
,.
"

r
Ir~
violation of term of licence or authorized construction." :
~
23.01.2013 Petitioner requested for deletion of the name of Anil Jain
who was the co-licensee. The same was acceded by
Respondent and a New license deed was signed
between Petitioner and Respondent for the period
14.05.2011 to 31.03.2015
01.09.2014 Letter by HOB Financial Services "We are funding term
loan of Mr. Rabi Ghosh Director of MIs YSF Hotel &
Resorts Pvt. Ltd. against of NOMC license deed hold
property which is situated in Shop Cum Flat No.27, Main
Market, Lodhi Colony, Lodhi Road, new Oelhi-110003.
We have mortgage of license deed"
20.10.2014 Letter by Respondent to HOB Financial Services "It is
,".' I

brought to your notice that you have entered into

mortgage in respect of a property where the mortgagee
is not the owner etc of the property. You have done so at
your own risk and if you loose your money in the process
NOMC will not be liable in any manner"
20.10.2014 Show Cause Notice issued by Respondent stating
"Where it has come to notice of that you have mortgage
, "1
the aforesaid property to HOB Financial Services Ltd and
taken loan aqainst this shop-cum flat"
13.11.2014 Letter issued by HOB Financial Service stating "Property
address bearing 27, Main market, Lodhi Road, Lodhi
Colony New Oelhi-110003 is not mortagaged under this
loan"
14.11.2014 Reply to show cause notice by Petitioner stating" In this
regard ;.1: would like to clarify that the aforesaid unit has
not been mortgaged for any loan from any Bank or any
Financial Institution along with copy of the letter from the
HOB Financial Services" and requested to withdraw the
Show Cause notice dated 20.10.2014
24.03.2015 Representation by Petitioner to Respondent" I hereby
request for the renewal of the same from 01.04.2015
onward~.\)t is pertinent to mention here that there are no
. t'~_

outstanding dues against the license fee up to date."

08.12.2016 In the execution proceeding against the Petitioner.
 Order Passed by Hon'ble High Court "For attachment of
four properties along with property in question.
01.03.2017 Show Cause Notice by Respondent stating "Whereas,
inspite of above stipulation, you have mortgaged the
NDMC's property with Financial institutions thereby
caused illegal loss to NDMC Fraudulently."
06.03.2017 Reply to show cause notice dated 01.03.2017 by
Petitioner" That a similar show cause Notice NO.1509
Estate, dated 20.10.2014 was issued to me in the year
·.. :.i)~::.-, '.~ ,
2014 and even then I had clarified vide reply dated
14.11.2014, that the aforementioned unit has not been
mortgaged for any loan from any bank or any financial
institution. A letter from the financial institution dated
13.11.2014 was annexed as proof. Following which the
show cause notice was withdrawn."
25.09.2017 A MOU was executed between Petitioner and Decree
"~'1' i"<.. ':
holder which was never acted upon.
26.10.2017 Order Passed by Hon'ble High Court in
EX.P.No.155/2016 "It is informed by learned counsel for
the judgment debtor that possession of the property at
SI.No.3 in the order dated 08.12.2016 i.e. Shop-cum-Flat
No.27, Main Market, Lodhi Road, New Dellli-03 has
been handed over to the decree holder."
21.11.2017 Closure-Letter
:
From HDB Financial Services to YSF
:

Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.- Agreement Number 575073 "

~ i

We confirm that the above loan account is now fully

repaid and closed. Details of Property are funished
below- Plot NO.-B-2/96 First & Second Floor With Roof
Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi".
30.07.2018 Order Passed by Hon'ble High Court in
Ex.P.NB.l55/2016~ "In the circumstances, the application
:' i

is allowed and the attachment order dated 08.12.2016 in

;

respect ofthe shop/flat No.27, Main Market, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi-11 0003 is hereby withdrawn with consent of
both the learned counsels for parties"
31.07.2018 Letter by Petitioner to Respondent" This is to inform you
that as per your advice, I had approached Delhi High

.:;';'; r·' s
 Court for vacation/withdrawal of attachment order dated
08.12.2016 and Hon'ble High Court, vide its order dated
30.07.2018 has allowed my said application and
withdrew tile attachment order dated 08.12.2016"
14.09.2018 Eviction Petition under section 5 and 7 of Public
Premises Act, 1971 filed by Respondent with the prayer"
Pass order of eviction under section 5 against the
respondent with respect to the Shop/Flat nO.27 Main
Market, Lodhi Road, under section 7 granting damages
for unauthorized occupation and use of the suit premises
till date of eviction and directing the respondent to pay
the outstanding licence fee and damages along with
interest-and cancellation charges.
24.09.2018 Representation
' .
by Petitioner to Respondent" I want to
submit that I am the Licensee of above mention
Property, My License expired on 31.03.2015, I applied
for renewal of my license on 24.03.2015, well before
date of expiry date of the license, but till date I am
waiting for the.same.
With Due.respect that I have been requesting for renewal
; I

of license Deed Since March, 2015. I will be grateful to

NDMC to renew My License as soon as Possible"
26.09.2018 Notice under sub-section (i) of section 4 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971
by Estate Officer to Petitoner
27.11.2018 Letter by Respondent NDMC to HDB Financial Service
seekin~I;;ypnfirmati(:m of letter dated 13.11.2014.
26.12.2018 In reply to letter dated 27.11.2018 issued by
Respondent, HDB Financial Service, vide letter dated
ze" December 2018 confirmed that the letter dated
13.11.2014 issued by HDB Financial Service (stating
therein that the subject property was not mortgaged with
HDB Financial Service) was submitted by HDB Financial
Service with NDMC (Respondent).
t'.i~.:t.1 1 , \

12.03.2019 Ld. Estate officer dismissed The Eviction Petition filed by

the Respondent
18.03.2019 Letter by Petitioner to Respondent Request for renewal
 !()
of Licence of Shop-cum-flat." After the long proceeding,
~-!. '...."

Hon'ble Estate Officer has issue the orders dated

12.03.201'9 vide no. 04/EO/2018 in my favour with
remark ....
You are requested to kindly renew my licence for further
10 years wef form 01.04.2015 onward, as per policy of
the NDMC. I have already paid my licence fee upto date"
19.08.2019 Aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by
;~~\ " .
Ld.Estate Officer, Respondent filed Appeal U/s 9 of
Public premises Act, 1971 before the District and
Session Judge South East (Appeal), Saket Couts, New
Delhi.
16.09.2019 Vide this letter HDB reconfirmed that letter dated
13.11.2014 and 24.12.2018 had been issued by them
and subject property was never mortgaged with them.
HDB further regretted for the inconvenience and
"

confusion caused to NDMC and their client of LOS

575073, due to negligence of one of their staff members.
01.02.2020 Hon'ble District Judge dismissed that above said appeal
filed by the Respondent and observed that there were no
violation of Licence Deed which could have entitled the
Petitioner (NDMC)
, to claim possession
. of the Shop.
17.02.2020 Represitilf'ltation by Petitioner to Respondent requesting
for renewal of licence of shop cum flat no.27, Main
market, Lodhi Road. New Delhi.
22.07.2020 Representation by Petitioner to Respondent Request for
renewal of Licence of Shop-cum-flat.
10.08.2020 Representation by Petitioner to Respondent Request for
renewal of Licence of Shop-cum-flat.
,
21.10.2020 The wrongaverment with reqard to the possession being
rtl r '!" .
handed 'over by the Petitioner to the Decree Holder has
been clarified vide order dated 21.10.2020 passed in
execution proceedings. The cancellation deed dated
03.09.2020 was also taken on record.
02.11.2020 Representation by Petitioner to Respondent requesting
for renewal of licence of shop cum flat no.27, Main
market, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Hence present petition.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
II
WRIT PETITION No.11188 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rabi Ghosh ... Petitioner

Versus

New Delhi Municipal Council ... Respondent

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION OF LIKE NATURE THEREBY QUASHING
2 SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 20.10.2014 & 01.03.2017 AND
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RENEW LICENCE DEED OF
THE SHOP-CUM-FLAT No. 27, MAIN MARKET, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER ON 11.04.1997
AND TO FURTHER ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
PROHIBITION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT THEREBY
RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENT FROM TAKING ANY
COERCIVE ACTION AGAINST THE AFORESAID PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER fN FURTHERANCE OF THE AFORESAID
SHOW-CAUSE1VOTICES DATED 20.10.2014 AND 01.03.2017.

TO,

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND

HIS COMPANION HON'BLE JUDGES

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Writ Petition is being preferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ in nature of Certiorari
and/or appropriate Writ, Order or Direction of like nature thereby
quashing the two show cause notices dated 20.10.2014 and
01.03.2017 directing the respondent to renew licence deed of the
shop-cum-flat no..27, Main Market, Lodhi Road, New Delhi allotted
to the petitioner on 11.04.1997 arid to further issue a writ in the
nature of prohibition against the Respondent thereby restraining the
Respondent from taking any coercive action against the aforesaid
 r0-
property of the!!p'etitioner in furtherance of the aforesaid show-cause
notices dated 20.10.2014 and 01.03.2017. It is respectfully
submitted that the present writ has been initiated due to the
aforesaid impugned action of the Respondent acting herein in
arbitrarily manner thereby the licence of the shop-cum-flat allotted to
the Petitioner on 11.04.1997 has not been renewed by the
Respondent since 01.04.2015. The show cause notices dated
20.10.2014 &;QJ'.03.2017, issued by the Respondent are perverse
and have been brushed aside by two courts below. The show cause
<~ •

notice dated 20.10.2014 and 01.03.2017 alongwith typed copy are

annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-1 (Colly).

2. That the Respondent is New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter

referred to as the NDMC) which was constituted under ageis of the
New Delhi Municipal Council Act,1994, the object whereof is to
provide establi~J~m~nt of the Municipal Council in the city of Delhi for
the purpose of regulating and administering properties situated in
the city, and being a statutory instrumentality, the Respondent is
amenable to the Writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court vested under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. That before advertinq in detail to the facts and circumstances

leading to th~.;;pl;ing of the present petition, it may be imperative to
,,'

state that the short issue involved in the present petition is as to

:',,3

whether the show cause notices dated 20.10.2014 & 01.03.2017

issued by the Respondent are sustainable in the eyes of law and/or
inaction of the Respondent in not renewing the licence of the said
shop of the Respondent is justified inspite of the fact that the show
cause notice dated 20.10.2014 & 01.03.2017, have been declared to
be non-sustainaple in the eyes of ,law vide order dated 12.03.2019
" .j .,;-,lJJ.

passed by the' Ld. Estate Officer, NDMC, in case No. 04/EO/2018

\

and vide detailed "order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Ld. District
and Sessions Judge, (South East), Saket in PPA No. 7/2019 thereby
dismissing the appeal of Respondent against the order dated
12.03.2019 on merits.
 Brief Facts:

(~
4. That the Petitioner and one Sh. Anil Jain were granted License for
the property be'a}ing shop-cum-flat No. 27, Main Market Lodhi Road,
New Delhi. Initially it was granted for a period from 11.04.1997 to
02.02.2002. As per the said Licence Deed, the Petitioner was
required to pay a licence fee of Rs. 7,5001- p.rn to the Respondent.
A copy of the Licence Deed alongwith typed copy is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P-2.

5. That the letter dated 11 th April 1997 has been renewed from time to
·r-,:>'·:;'
time by the Respondent. The Respondent vide letter dated
04.04.2006 has renewed the shop-cum-flat of the Petitioner for the
period from 02.02.2002 to 31.03.2005. Copy of the letter dated
04.04.2006 issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner alongwith
typed copy is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3.

6. That the Petitioner requested to the Respondent for deletion of

'.\-' ~

name of AnW"~Jail who was co-Iicencee with the Petitioner and

submitted all requisite documents and fee as required by the
Respondent. The request of the Petitioner was acceded by the
Respondent and a new Licence Deed dated 23 rd January, 2013 was
executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent for the period
from 14.05.2011 to 31.03.2015 at an enhanced licence fee of Rs.
28,2601-. Furthermore, the Petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.
2,26,0801- as-security equivalent to 8 months current licence fee
with the Respondent as recorded in para 31 of the Licence Deed
,/

rd
dated 23 of January 2013. Copy of the Licence Deed dated
23.01.2013 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-4.

7. That vide letter dated 01.09.2014, one HDB Financial Services

wrote to the Respondent that they were funding a term loan of the
I

Petitioner against the Respondent's Licence Deed. A show cause

.. '-~'{ .:~~

notice dated 20.10.2014 was issued by the Respondent to the

, \

Petitioner asking 'why did the Petitioner mortgage the government

property with a financial institutions. The Petitioner vide letter dated
14.11.2014 duly replied the said show cause notice and clarified that
the aforesaid unit was never mortgaged by the Petitioner with

. .,'
"
.... ~
 anyone. The Petitioner further clarified that a copy of Licence Deed
dated 23 rd January 2013 was produced by the Petitioner to HOB
Financial Services Limited only to prove his professional credentials
and not for any other purpose. The Petitioner further explained that
he had objected to HDB Financial Services Limited for
misrepresenting that .the property in question was mortgaged from
availing loan from HOB Financial Services Limited. A clarification
dated 13.11.2014 was also submitted by HOB Financial Services
. i

that the property in question was never mortgaged by the Petitioner

for any loan. A copy of the clarification/letter dated 13.11.2014
issued by the HOB Financial Services was also attached to the reply
dated 14.11.2014 to the show cause notice dated 20.10.2014 issued
by the NOMC. A copy of the letter dated 01.09.2014 issued by HOB
Fina~cial SerWm~s alongwith typed copy is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P.-5.

Copy of the reply dated 14.11.2014 to show cause notice issued by

the Respondent along with clarification letter dated 13.11.2014
issued by the HOB Financial Services Limited alongwith typed copy
is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-6(Colly).

,'_ ....{~,.' '1 •

8. Thatno actlori'was taken by NOMC thereafter till the end of the term
of the Licence Deed. Since the term of Licence Deed was about to
expire on 31 st March 2015, the Petitioner gave a representation
dated 24.03.2015 to the Respondent for renewal of the Licence
Deed of the said shop-cum-flat, from 01.04.2015 onwards. Copy of
the representation dated 24.03.2015 alongwith typed copy is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-7.
10,' ) ': .
9. It is pertinent' to mention here that a decree dated 8th September,
. ,
2016 was passed against the Petitioner in a suit bearing No.
183/2016 by this Hon'ble Court in Execution which, the said property
along with 3 other properties of the Petitioner were mortgaged vide
order dated 08.12.2016, upon misrepresentation by the decree
holder at the back of the Petitioner. The said attachment against the
subject property was withdrawn by this Hon'ble Court vide order
'" I .

dated 30.07.iC)1s. Copy of order dated 08.12.2016 & 30.07.2018

 is:
passed in execution petition 155/2016 are annexed as ANNEXURE
P-8 (Colly).

10. That the Respondent issued a second show cause notice dated
01.03.2017 to the Petitioner stating therein that the Petitioner had
mortgaged the NOMC's property with Financial institutions thereby
caused illegal loss to NOMC fraudulently. The Petitioner replied to
the said show cause notice vide reply dated 06.03.2017 stating
therein that a similar show cause notice No. 1509 Estate, dated
20.10.2014 was issued to the Petitioner in the year 2014 and even
then Petitioner had clarified vide reply dated 14.11.2014, that the
aforementioned unit has never been mortgaged by the Petitioner at
any time for any loan from any bank or any financial institution. A
letter from the financial institution dated 13.11.2014 was annexed as
proof. Copy of the reply dated 06.03.2017 to show cause notice
alongwith typed copy is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-9.

11. That it is also, pertinent to mention that MOU dated 25.09.2017 was
executed between the Petitioner and the decree holder in the
.,
execution proceedings which was never acted upon. Furthermore,
in order dated 26.10.2017 passed in Ex. Petition No. 155/2016, it
was inadvertently recorded that the possession of the subject
property was handed over by the Petitioner to the decree holder.
Copy of the MOU dated 25.09.2017 is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE~-:~"p. Copy of the order dated 26.10.2017 passed in
, ... ,~'" ~

Ex. Petition 155/2016 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-11.

12. That vide order dated 21.10.2020, passed in Ex. Petition 155/2016,
the Cancellation Deed dated 03.09.2020 which sought to cancel the
MOU dated 25.09.2017, was taken on record. Furthermore, it was
also clarified in the said order that the subject property, being
handed over to the decree holder by the Petitioner, was factually not
,.ii., '

correct. Copy bfthe cancellation deed dated 03.09.2020 is annexed

herewith as ANNEXURE P-12 Copy of the order dated 21.10.2020
passed in Ex. Petition 155 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-
13.

13. That the HOB Financial Services Limited vide letter dated
21.11.2017, confirmed to the Petitioner that the subject loan (against

,
:
.~ ...
:.;.
".;,.'
 10
which, HOB Financial Services Limited, had wrongly represented to
the Respondent in the subject property being mortgaged) was fully
repaid and closed. HOB Financial Services Limited further furnished
the details of the property mortgaged against the said loan which
was Plot No. B-2/96, 1st & 2 nd Floor with roof, Safdarjung, New Delhi.
A copy of c1osu~e letter dated 21.11.2017 issued by HOB Financial
Services Limited alongwith typed copy is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-14.

That the Petitioner further represented to the Respondent vide letter

dated 31.07.2018 and requested for renewal of licence in respect of
SUbject property. Copy of the representation dated 31.07.2018
alongwith typed copy is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-15.
".t j

14. That the Respondent instead of considering the request of Petitioner

for renewal of licence deed of the SUbject property, preferred an
eviction petition under Section 5 & 7 of Public Premises Act, 1971
for eviction of tile Petitioner from the subject property. Copy of the
eviction petition filed by the Respondent is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-16.

15. That the Ld. Estate Officer vide letter dated 27.11.2018, enquired
from HOB Financial Services Limited as to whether letter dated
13.11.2014 issued by the HOB Financial Services was genuine or
not. The Ld. Estate Officer further enquired as to whether the
subject property was ever mortgaged by the Petitioner with HOB
Financial Services Limited. HOB Financial Services vide its letter
dated zs" December, 2018, replied that the letter dated 13.11.2014
was issued by them. They also confirmed that the SUbject property
was never rnortqaqed with them at any point of time. Copy of the
letter dated 27.11.2018 issued by Ld. Estate Officer, NDMC to HOB
Financial Services to NDMC alongwith typed copy is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P-17. Copy of the letter dated 24 th
December, 2018 issued by the HOB Financial Services to NDMC
alongwith typed copy is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-18.

,f- ~ {"-,
16. That Ld. Estate Officer vide order dated 12.03.2019, dismissed the
,\
eviction petition' filed by the Respondent with direction to the
Petitioner to pay all the dues, damages, fee, if any, against the said
 17-
premises. Ld. Estate Officer further directed the Respondent to
consider the request
;.. :
of the Petitioner for extension of the Licence
~ ,

Deed at the earliest. Copy of the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by

the Ld. Estate Officer alongwith typed copy is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-19.

17. That the Petitioner vide representation dated 18.03.2019 once again
requested the Respondent to renew the licence of the subject
property for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 01.04.2015 in terms of the
existing policyYi'of' the Respondent. The Petitioner expressly
mentioned that h~ had cleared/paid the all bills raised by the NDMC
towards licence fee, electricity charges & water bills towards the
subject property. Copy of the representation dated 18.03.2019 is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-20.

18. That Vide this letter HOB reconfirmed that letter dated 13.11.2014
and 24.12.201\~~,had been issued by them and subject property was
never mortgaged
, \
with them. HOB further regretted for the
inconvenience and confusion caused to NDMC and their client of
LOS 575073, due to negligence of one of their staff members. Copy
of the letter dated 16.09.2019 written by HOB to NDMC alongwith
typed copy is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-21.

19. That the Respondent challenged the order dated 12.03.2019 passed
_ ,,;:1' ".' ; ,
by the Estate "Officer before the District and Session Judge, (SE),
Saket Courts, New Delhi vide PPA No. 7/2019. Ld. District and
Sessions Judge, was pleased to dismiss the appeal under Section 9
of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act,
1971 on merits vide detailed order dated 01.02.2020. Copy of the
judgment dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions
Judge, (SE) Saket Courts, New Delhi in PPA No. 7/2019 is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P-22.

..
'

20. That the Petitioner further represented to the Respondent for

renewal of the licence of subject shop-cum-flat vide letter dated
17.02.2020, 22.07.2020, 10.08.2020. Copy of the representation
dated 17.02.2020, 22.07.2020, 10.08.2020 are annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-23 (COllY).
 )~
21. That in the month of August, 2020, the Petitioner received an
advance copy of CM(Main) purported to be filed by the Respondent
against the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Ld. District and
Sessions Judge. The Petitioner has no information whether the said
appeal has be'~~ filed by the Respondent before Hon'ble Delhi High
Court or not. However, the Petitioner has been regularly checking
on the website of the Delhi High Court and the said appeal has not
been listed till date. The inaction of the Respondent has left the
Petitioner in lurch and the Petitioner is left with no other remedy but
to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of present writ petition.

22. That before filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has also
given a detailed representation dated 02.11.2020 to the Respondent
., .',

narrating the above mentioned facts and circumstances. No

response of the same has been received by the Petitioner till date.
Copy of the representation dated 02.11.2020 is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-24.

23. That in the light of the aforesaid factual matrix, the present writ
'".'i c. ~ \ I

petition is berrl'g 'filed thereby invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction

of the this Hon'ble Court by seeking issuance of a writ in the nature
of mandamus and/or certiorari for quashing of show cause notices
dated 20.10.2014 & 01.03.2017 and directing the Respondent to
renew license of the shop-cum-flat No. 27, Main Market Lodhi Road, !~
New Delhi of the Petitioner in the interest of justice, on the following
amongst other grounds:-

GROUNDS
I .'

A. Because the Petitioner has diligently continued his business

from the said property for more than two decades and has been
regularly paying the licence fee to the Respondent without any
delay. Since the licence deed of the Petitioner has not been
extended, the Petitioner could not get the licence/permission
from the various authorities of the Respondent for carrying his
\'j ,'.,.

',-",
business from the said property.
" ,.

B. Because the licence deed of the Petitioner has been renewed

from time to time by the Respondent retrospectively. Vide letter
 /9
dated 04.0~.2006, the licence deed was extended for the
period from 02.02.2002 to 31.03.2005. There was no valid
reason with" NOMC, not to extend the licence deed of the
Petitioner.

c. Because the show cause notice dated 20.10.2014 issued by

the NOMC on the premise of a letter dated 01.09.2014 written
by HOB Financial Services, was per se unsustainable in the
•. j •.., "
eyes of law for the reason, HOB Financial Services vide letter
dated 13.11.2014, had clarified that the subject property, was
never mortgaged by the Petitioner against any loan.
Furthermore, the Respondent was satisfied from the reply
dated 14.11.2014 to the show cause notice dated 20.10.2014
issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner. Accordingly, no
action was taken by the Respondent till 01.03.2017.

.~\ .

O. Because theterms of licence had expired on 31.03.2015 (while

. I

the representation dated 24.03.2015 of the Petitioner for

extension of the licence deed of the subject property was
pending with the Respondent), no action has been taken by the
Respondent till 01.03.2017 ( i.e. 2 years after expiry of the
licence deed) thereby confirming the position that Respondent
had to extend the licence deed of the flat retrospectively as was
, ;-,;'~.
:"\'1
being done on earlier occasions.

E. Because the show cause notice dated 01.03.2017 was issued

on the premise alleging that the Petitioner had mortgaged the
NOMC's property with financial institution thereby caused illegal
loss to the NOMC fraudulently. The show cause notice dated
01.03.2017 is reproduced hereinbelow:

"1. Whereas, Shop & Flat No. 27, Main Market, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi was allotted to you by New
Delhi Municipal Council vide licence deed dated
23.1.2013. As per the said licence deed, the
ownership of the property rests with NDMC and
the. licence deed was valid up to 31.3.2015.
 2. Whereas, as per licence deed, the licensee
cannot introduce any partner nor the shall transfer
possession of the premises or part thereof or
, '

otherwise carry on the business in the premises

with any other person or assign, transfer, change
or otherwise alienate his interest in the premises
without the previous consent in writing of the
licensor i.e. NOMC.

3. Whereas, inspite of above stipulation, you have

mortgaged the NOMC's property with financial
institutions thereby caused illegal loss to NOMC
fraudulently.

4. Whereas, a Show Cause Notice in this regard was

also issued to you vide No. 1509/Estate dated
20.10.2014 to submit your reply and cancel the
mortgage within days failing which action as
periew will be initiate against you. No reply to this
:','

Show Cause Notice was received from you.

You are hereby called upon to show cause as to

why licence in respect of above property may not
be cancelled from your name due to above
violations. If your reply is received within 7 days
from the receipt of this notice, the licence will be
cancelled the case will be processed for eviction
and claiming damages under Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971".

F. Because there was no ground for the Respondent not to

continue the licence deed of the Petitioner after 31.03.2015.
The ground taken in the show cause notice dated 01.03.2017 is
unsustainable' on the face of it, especially when HOB Financial
Services Limited vide its letter dated 13.11.2014,21.11.2017,
24.12.2018 & 16.09.2019 from time to time clearly stated that
the subject property as never mortgaged by the Petitioner
against any loan. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
 • ....A
,-
~J"
. ~I
letter dated 24.12.2018 written by the HDB Financial Services
Limited was in reply to the letter dated 27.11.2018 issued by
the Estate Officer of the Respondent to HDB Financial Services
seeking confirmation of its letter dated 13.11.2014.

G. Because the eviction petition filed by the Respondent under

Section 5 & 7 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 came to be
dismissed by the Ld. Estate Officer after detailed enquiry.

H. Because the appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises

Act, 1971 filed by the Respondent was dismissed by the Ld.
District and Sessions Judge on merits vide detailed order dated
01.02.2020.

I. Because no appeal has been filed/listed before the Hon'ble

,. ",1' ,~ -,tv \
Delhi High Court against the detailed order dated 01.02.2020
passed by .the Ld. District and Sessions Judge dismissing
appeal of the Respondent.

J. Because the grounds taken by the Respondent in the advance

copy of the CM(M) served by the Petitioner have never been
taken by the Respondent at any stage and not sustainable.
Even ever-since the Petitioner cannot be left in lurch forever
.v ,

inspite of hav!ing two consecutive court orders in his favour.

K. Because the MOU dated 25.09.2017 executed between the

Petitioner (Judgment-Debtor in execution proceedings) and the
Decree Holder, has been cancelled vide Cancellation Deed
dated 03.09.2020 and the observation that the subject property
was handed over to the Decree Holder, as recorded in the
.• ;,#'!~ '''!.~) " . '

order dated 26.10.2017 has been rectified vide order dated 21 5t

October 2020 passed in the Ex. Petition 155/2016.

L. Because the other similarly placed allottees/licencees are

continuing with their shops cum flat without no hindrances or
objection for the Respondent.

M. Because .,even
• I ~"'"
the cases whether the properties
allotted/licenced by the Respondent, which are transferred by
one person to other, are recognized and regularized as per
clause 6, the Police/ circular dated 16.08.2016. Clause 6 of the
Policy/circular dated 16.08.2016 is reproduced herein below:

"6 Transfer of licence on Partnership basis:

(i) All cases before the date of issuing this circular i.e.
16.08.2016 shall be governed as per the Council's
resolutions application as on that date.
(ii) For prospective cases of transfer: Prior permission of
the NOMC is made mandatory in terms of the modified
clause no. 9 of the standard Licence Deed before
-',I ~

entering into partnership or to allow any person to use

the shop in any manner during tile valid term of licence
subject to enhancement of the existing licence fee by
50%. In default of such prior permission, the
licensee/occupant shall be liable for eviction and
ej~cftnent being unauthorized occupant besides
forfeiture of the security deposit and damage charges.

(iii) For pending cases of transfer: Partnership entered

before the date of issuing this circular i.e. 16.8.2016,
NOMC will entertain such cases, irrespective of whether
the same was done during the valid term of licence or
after expiry of the licence, as an exceptional case. If the
,~~. '·f",· ,,
occupant now seeks the permission of the NOMC at this
belated stage, such transfer cases shall be regularized
after forfeiting the earlier security deposit by the
licensee and subject to enhancement of the licence fee
by such percentage as per the respective Council's
resolutions applicable as on that date for each such
transfer and completion of other required formalities like
deposit of fresh security deposit, etc.
(iv) In cases, wherein the licence holder has died and has
.
' .'.~.

nominated any other person or organization for using

whole of such premises only for purposes such as
literature, science, art and social service, without any
commercial usage, in such cases the application for
 ?~3
transfer of licence, along with an undertaking by the
applicant to not use such premises for any commercial
purpose, may be considered on case to case basis,
subject to enhancement of the licence fee by 50%. In
case of date of such transfer is before the date of issuing
this circular i.e. 16.8.2016, enhancement of the licence
fee: will be by such percentage as per the respective
Council's
, l'
resolutions applicable as on that date for each
such transfer. If at any time, it is found that such
premises is used for commercial usage, then licence of
such premises will stand terminated after giving a notice
of 21 days to such licence holder by Director (Estate).

(v) Transfers 'are freely allowed (except in case of premises

grant'ed under special considerations such as
SC/ST!OBC/Physically challenged etc.) in the above
manner only.

(vi) In case of date of entry of partnership on or after issuing

of this circular i.e. 16.8.2016, there will be 30%
enhancement in the licence fee. In case of date of entry
of partnership before 16th August, 2016 enhancement of
':I, '1iW: ,
therllcence fee will be by such percentage as per the
respective Council's resolutions applicable as on that
date for each such partnership.

(vii) If the status of the individual licensee is converted into

the Private Limited Companies, the same shall be
permissible subject to enhancement in the existing
licence fee by 50%. The existing/proposed private
:ir1,~')t

limited companies/companies seeking transfer shall have

to submit annual declaration indicating change in equity
holding pattern, if any. Whenever, there is change in
equity holding pattern of more than 25%, the licence fee
of such company shall be enhanced by 50% w.e.f. the
date of change of such equity holding pattern.

(viii) Any lssue/point not covered under the above policy shall
,(','j",

be decided by the Chairman on merits, while keeping the

overall' spirit of this policy.
 (ix) Deletion of name of partner is allowed without any cost
with prior approval of NDMC, subject to NOC from all
..
other-holders of that licence. ;
I:
;-i
"
u!

r~
(x) Cases involving multiple transfer are to be dealt in
accordance with the above proposals".

Copy of the circular dated 16.08.2016 is annexed herewith as

ANNEXURE P-25.

N. Because ;'eVen the subletting is allowed as per the discretion of

the Respondent
;,)
as specified in clause 8 of the circular dated
16.08.2016 issued by the Respondent/NDMNC. Clause 8 is
reproduced hereinbelow.
"8. Subletting:
(i) All cases before issuing this circular i.e. 16.08.2016 shall
be governed as per the Council's resolutions applicable
aS~!JJhat date.

(ii) No sub-letting shall be allowed except in the following

case:
(a) In exceptional circumstance, wherein the licensee
expires at age when his family does not have any
major legal heir (i. e. on or above 18 years of age)
except his wife, then (i) the wife of the licensee, or (ii)
in cese of death of wife of the licensee - all legal heirs
'\i\:6 .:
of the licensee, may apply for permission to a three-
member Committee of Oir (Estate), Municipal Officer
Health and Chief Architect for sub-letting the shop;
and
(b) The Chairperson, on case-to-case basis, considering
the recommendation of the Committee, may allow the
same on payment of one-time fee (Rs. 50 per sq. ft.
, ;,./.l, '
for open area and Rs. 200 per sq. ft. for other than
ooen area (this fee is to be revised every five years)]
for two years at a time, in addition to licence fee/other
applicable dues; and
(c) If required, the person(s) mentioned above may apply
for extension of such permission at/east 90 days
 ... '-'
-:

before expiry of such approved period following the

procedure mentioned above; and
(d) This sub-clause does not give any right to anyone to
sublet the NOMC's premises, and can be done only
after prior approval of Chairperson in exceptional
circumstances as mentioned herein".

O. Because the Petitioner has been regularly clearing the bills

raised by NOMC on account of licence fee, water bills,
electricity bills from 11.04.1997 to 31 st March, 2020.

Copy of the billraised for licence fee for the month of March
2020, Electriclty charges and water charges along with their
..

payment receipts are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-26

(Colly).

P. Because the various representations made by the Petitioner

dated 24.03.2015, 13.01.2017, 01.08.2018, 18.08.2019,
13.02.2020, 22.07.2020, 10.08.2020 & 02.11.2020 are pending
consideration with the Respondent.
t .:~;,;~lj ':

Q. Because the Respondent has acted ultra vires and the show
cause notice dated 20.10.2014 and 01.03.2017 are nothing but
a classic example of misuse and abuse of power of authority,
which, being instrumentality of state within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has acted in arbitrary and
high handed' manner by failing to take a decision on the
representations of the Petitioner and furthermore by not
granting extension of the licence deed of the subject property.
It may be appreciated that the Respondent, being an
instrumentality of State, is duty bound to act in an equitable and
fair manner, and ensure preservation of fundamental and other
riqhts of the Petitioner.

R. Because the impugned action of the Respondent is in violation

~h(~\
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Respondent has
adopted a' discriminatory attitude towards the Petitioner
inasmuch as the Respondent on the one hand is extending the
 licence deed of the similarly placed allottees, on the other hand
prohibitin~r"the Petitioner to carryon his business from the
subject property by not extending his licence deed. The show
cause notices issued by the Respondent are thus ultra vires
and is a classic instance of misuse and abuse of power and
authority by the Respondent, which, being an instrumentality of
State within the meaning and scope of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, has acted in an arbitrary and hiqh handed
manner.,:,;, '/i
J.:.)

In view of the grounds taken hereinabove and any other

ground(s) which may be taken up by the Petitioner during the
hearing of the present Writ Petition with the leave of this
Hon'ble Court, the show cause notice dated 20.10.2014 and
01.03.2017 issued by the Respondent are liable to be quashed
and the licence deed of the Petitioner is liable to be renewed.

24. That the Petitioner has been subjected to grave miscarriage of

justice by the impugned action of the Respondent herein and
therefore, has been left with no other alternative efficacious remedy
but to file the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is relevant to mention that the Petitioner duly
responded to the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2014 &
01.03.2017. However, the Respondent has not bothered to respond
to the said replies, and the various representations of the Petitioner,
. i :.

and has not even provided any hearing to the Petitioner in respect of
the said show cause notices.

25. That the Petitioner has not filed any other petition before this
Hon'ble Court or, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
respect of the ItrHefs prayed in the present petition.
,"- .

26. That the Petitioner craves liberty of this Hon'ble Court to amend
and/or alter any of the grounds mentioned hereinabove or to urge
additional grounds, if the need arises or new facts are revealed.

27. That the documents attached as Annexures to this writ petition are
true copies of their respective originals.
 Copy of the Aadhar Card of the Petitioner is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-27.

28. That the entire cause of action in the present case has arisen in
New Delhi and ..therefore "
the same is within the territorial jurisdiction
s-

of this Hon'bleCourt.

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstances, mentioned above and in

the interest of justice. it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may qraciously be pleased to allow this petition and:

(i) quash the show cause notices dated 20.10.2014 and

01.03.2017 issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner;

(ii) direct the Respondent to renew the licence deed of the

Petitioner for the shop-cum-flat no. 27, Main Market, Lodhi
'f',;,,~

Road, New Delhi w.e.f. 01.04.2015 in the interest of justice;

(iii) direct the Respondent not to charge the licence fee, water
bills, electricity bills, damages, interests etc. on the shop-cum-
flat no. 27, Main Market, Lodhi Road, New Delhi w.e.f.
01.04.2015 till the day of actual renewal of licence deed and
adjust the same in future licence fee.

(iv) held thE/h~ncerned officer of the Respondent responsible with

exemplary costs for delaying the renewal of the licence deed
of shop-cum-flat no. 27, Main Market, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
and also for initiating the 'frivolous proceedings against the
Petitioner by way of filing eviction petition, appeal under
Section 9 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 and/or CM(M)
before Delhi High Court;
 pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

reasonable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in

the interest of justice.

~
Petitioner

Through

(RAKESH MITTAl)
Advocate

,I
'I
I

New Delhi IC\\\ b~

',:j
I
I Dated: \ \ 'V\ 0-118, lGF, Defence Colony
i New Delhi -110024
i
'1 Mob.: 9999303080
i
! Email-advrakeshmitta/@gmail.com