Community Welfare Banquet & Ors. v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.; Ready Mint Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi High Court · 17 Mar 2021 · 2021:DHC:981
Sanjeev Sachdeva
W.P.(C) 3666/2020 & 3676/2020
2021:DHC:981
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed banquet hall owners to apply for compensation under Section 66 of the Disaster Management Act for COVID-19 requisitioned premises, without deciding on the validity of the requisition orders.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P(C) 3666/2020 & 3676/2020 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 17.03.2021
W.P.(C) 3666/2020 & CM. APPL. 13092/2020
COMMUNITY WELFARE BANQUET & ORS ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENTOF NATIONAL CAPITALTERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 3676/2020 & CM. APPLS.13163-65/2020
READY MINT PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENTOF NATIONAL CAPITALTERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sachin Chopra and Ms. Astha Gupta, Advocates in W.P(C) 3666/2020.
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Advocate and Mr. Devashish Bhadauria, Advocates in W.P(C) 3676/2020.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Mr. Naman Jain, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEVSACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. These petitions inter alia seek quashing of orders dated 12.6.2020 whereby banquet halls were requisitioned for converting them into makeshift COVID-19 designatedhospitals/zones. 2021:DHC:981 W.P(C) 3666/2020 & 3676/2020 2

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filingof the petition, all thebanquet halls have been re-requisitioned and handed back on 21.8.2020.

3. Learned counsel submits that though the banquet halls have been handed back, thequestion as to the legality of the subject order or the right of therespondent to pass such an order still survives.

4. He furthersubmits that in terms of Section 66 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the concerned officer,who requisitioned theproperty was also required to determine the compensation to be paid for such purpose.

5. Learned counsel submits that it was obligatory on the said officer to pass the order of payment compensation in terms of Section 66 without the requirement of an application.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitsthat since one of the factorsfor determination of compensation, under Section 66 of the Act, is the rent payable in respect of the said premises, it would be necessary for the banquet ownerto give requisite details.

7. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of, permitting the banquet owners whose banquet halls had been requisitioned to make an application under Section 66 of the Act to the concerned officer providing the requisitedetails as stipulated in the said Section for the purposes of determination of compensation,if any. W.P(C) 3666/2020 & 3676/2020 3

8. On receipt of the application, the concerned officer shall dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks of the receipt of the application.

9. Since the banquet halls have already been de-requisitioned and possession handed back to the owners, the question with regard to validity of the order and the competence of the officer is left open.

10. The petitioners are accordingly disposed of. All rights and contentions of thepartiesare reserved.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MARCH 17, 2021 NA