Dastkari Haat Samiti v. Delhi Tourism and Transporation Development Corporation and Anr.

1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred with the following prayers: “a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the Respondents to follow the mandate of the Circular dated 3rd May 1994 as referred in paragraph 10 at pages 6 to 11 of this PIL, in letter and spirit. b. Pass an order directing the committee as set out in the Circular dated 3rd May 1994 to reconvene and take charge of Dilli Haat, function regularly and formally with proper 2019:DHC:6481-DB quorum and with all discussion recorded and displayed on website for full transparency. c. Pass an order directing the committee as set out in the Circular dated 3rd May 1994 to correct the irregularities in this PIL to ensure that Dilli Haat is managed in accordance with the Circular dated 3rd May 1994 and the guidelines issued by this Hon'ble Court. d. Pass an order directing committee as set out in the Circular to conduct enquiry into the irregularities alleged in this PIL and to make a report to this Hon'ble Court. e. Pass an order quashing the Dilli Haat Operation and Management Rules, 2006 as referred in paragraph 13 at pages 14 to 15 of the PIL; f. Pass an order prohibiting e-auction of any stall at Dilli Haat; g. Pass an order restraining the Respondents from permitting the sale of any of the items mentioned in paragraph 35 of the PIL or any other items similar thereto; h. Pass an order prohibiting Respondent No.l from constructing additional stalls. i. Pass an order prohibiting Respondent No.l from allocating stalls. j. Pass an order directing the Respondents to meticulously follow the recommended guidelines set out in paragraph 92 of this PIL, in addition to the Circular dated 3 May 1994. k. Pass an interim order in terms of prayers (b), (d), (f), (g) and (i).”

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very object for which the Dilli Haat was set up in Delhi is not being properly met by the respondents. The original objective of setting up of Dilli Haat, approximately 25 years ago, was to provide a place to craft persons from handicrafts and handlooms sector to market their products directly to the consumers, eliminating the role of middlemen. But now, Dilli Haat has been converted into a big bazaar consisting of small shops. The licencees of Dilli Haat are presently selling varieties of products including Chinese goods which are neither produced by the handicraft artisans nor considered to be handricraft/handloom products. Hence, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner, seeking directions from this court to the respondents to follow their circular dated 3rd May, 1994 and earlier position of Dilli Haat may be restored by the respondents.

3. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition as this is not a “Public Interest Litigation” at all. In fact, this is a “Publicity Interest Litigation”. A situation, which was prevailing approximately 25 years ago, is bound to be changed in accordance with the present scenario at the behest of the respondents, especially for Dilli Haat. It is left open to the wisdom of the respondents to decide as to what should be the nature of Dilli Haat, to whom licences are to be given in Dilli Haat, what type of goods are to be displayed/sold and for what period the licences are to be given etc. It is a policy decision to be taken by the respondents who are managing Dilli Haat. Policies are bound to be changed and altered with the efflux of time as per current scenario and requirements. Thus, change is inevitable.

4. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to issue a writ of mandamus to respondents as prayed in this writ petition.

5. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J. NOVEMBER 28, 2019 r.bararia