Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th September, 2025
ASHU KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. lakshay Sawhney, Mohammad Huzaifa, Advocates (M:8755554896)
Through: Ms. Ankita Sarangi, ASC for NDMC
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent-New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”) to relocate the Shop of the petitioner, i.e., Shop No. 13, Pan Thara, Jantar Mantar, New Delhi- 110001, to one of the proposed viable and feasible sites, as detailed in Annexure P-21 (colly) of the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the shop in question was initially allotted in favour of one Sh. Deepak Kumar vide License Deed dated 21st June, 2013. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into a partnership with the said Sh. Deepak Kumar on 06th January, 2016. Subsequently, the said partnership was dissolved vide Dissolution Deed dated 02nd May, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Circular dated 16th August, 2016 issued by Estate-I Department, NDMC, regarding the transfer of license on partnership basis. By relying upon the aforesaid policy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer of license on the basis of partnership is recognized the NDMC.
4. He further draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-11, which is the Statement of Account in respect to the shop in question to submit that as per the document of NDMC, the petitioner is still in occupation of the shop in question, and has been paying license fee at an enhanced rate.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-8, which is a letter dated 05th September, 2017, written by the petitioner to the respondent-NDMC, requesting for transfer/regularization of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner herein.
6. Pursuant to such request for transfer by the petitioner, the NDMC wrote a letter dated 03rd December, 2018, to the said Sh. Deepak Kumar, regarding confirmation of the documents, i.e., Partnership Deed dated 06th January, 2016 and Dissolution Deed Dated 02nd May, 2016.
7. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 03rd December, 2018, vide letter dated 18th December, 2018, the said Sh. Deepak Kumar confirmed the said documents in respect of the shop in question, in favour of the petitioner.
8. This Court further takes note of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that cheques towards the enhanced license fees are duly deposited by the petitioner.
9. The petitioner also relies upon a letter received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein, the petitioner has been recognized as occupant of the area in question.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NDMC submits that the policy of the NDMC for transfer under Clause 6 of the Circular dated 16th August, 2016, is under review. She, thus, submits that no transfers have taken place on that ground.
11. She further draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-23, i.e. the Speaking Order dated 17th February, 2023, passed by the Deputy Director Estate-I, whereby, the prayer of the petitioner for relocation to some other place has been rejected.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent-NDMC further submits that the License Deed in favour of Sh. Deepak Kumar, i.e., the original licensee, itself states that the License shall not be transferred on the basis of partnership.
13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that the occupation of the petitioner has already been recognized by the NDMC, by allowing the petitioner to continue to be in occupation of the shop in question, since 2016, on the basis of the Partnership Deed dated 06th January, 2016.
14. This Court takes note of the circular dated 16th August, 2016 issued by the Estate-I Department, NDMC and in particular, Clause 6 which encapsulates the policy regarding the transfer of license on partnership basis, which reads as under: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”
15. As per the aforesaid policy, in cases of transfer on the basis of partnership, enhanced license fees shall be recovered by the NDMC. Thus, in this regard, this Court takes note of the document on record which clearly evidences that the petitioner has been paying and the NDMC has been accepting, license fees for the said premises at enhanced rates. When NDMC itself has been accepting the enhanced license fee from the petitioner, the occupation of the petitioner has clearly been recognized by the NDMC.
16. It is to be noted that on the basis of his partnership deed with the original licensee, i.e., Mr. Deepak Kumar, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 05th September, 2017 to the NDMC requesting for transfer/regularization of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to this letter, the NDMC wrote a letter dated 03rd December, 2018, which reads as under:
17. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 03rd December, 2018, the original licensee, Sh. Deepak Kumar, confirmed the documents in respect of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner. The said letter is reproduced as under:
18. Perusal of the aforesaid letter clearly shows that the documents pertaining to the partnership deed and dissolution deed between the petitioner and the original licensee were duly confirmed to the NDMC by the said original licensee. Further, the original licensee also gave a no objection if the license of the premises in question, were to be transferred/regularized in the name of the petitioner.
19. Further, this Court also takes note of the document maintained by the respondent-NDMC, in the normal course of its business, wherein, the NDMC has recognized the occupation of the petitioner. The said document is reproduced as under: W.P.(C) 17458/2022. Perusal of the aforesaid document clearly shows that the name of the petitioner is clearly mentioned in Serial No. 19 as the occupant of the shop in question. Further, at Serial No. 20 of the aforesaid document, it is clearly recognized that the occupation of the petitioner is on the basis of partnership. Further, Serial no. 31 of the aforesaid document clearly shows the said case to be that of revision of fee and transfer.
21. Thus, this Court notes that the status of the petitioner as a transferee of the shop in question, has been duly recognized by the NDMC, though, no formal order in that regard may have been passed by the NDMC.
22. This Court further notes the fact that the petitioner has been depositing the enhanced license fees with the NDMC, which is duly been accepted by the NDMC for the last many years.
23. Further, the NDMC itself, in its own document, has noted the fact with regard to the occupation of the shop in question by the petitioner on the basis of a partnership.
24. This Court takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent that the policy of the respondent-NDMC for transfer of license on the basis of partnership is under review. Though the said policy of the NDMC may be under review, the fact remains that on the basis of the subsisting policy, the petitioner has not only been allowed to continue to be in occupation of the premises in question for the last many years, but the NDMC has also been accepting license fees at enhanced rate from the petitioner.
25. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in occupation of the shop in question for a long time, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the petitioner for relocation to some other feasible site ought to be W.P.(C) 17458/2022 Page 11 of considered by the respondent-NDMC, as per its rules and regulations in that regard.
26. As regards the submission of the NDMC that its policy of transfer on the basis of partnership is under review, it is held that consequences would automatically follow in case NDMC was to review its policy ultimately and bring out a new policy.
27. The issue of regularization of the occupation of the petitioner is not before this Court, and the same would be governed by the policy of the NDMC in this regard. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is in occupation of the shop in question for a long time, and enhanced license fee is also being taken by the NDMC from the petitioner. Therefore, the long occupation of the petitioner, since the year 2016, cannot be ignored.
28. It is clarified that the present order shall not be interpreted to confer any right or title over the shop in question in favour of the petitioner, in violation of any policy of the NDMC. Final orders in that regard shall be passed by the NDMC on the basis of its policy. Anyway, the said issue is not before this Court and is not being adjudicated in the present proceedings.
29. The present order is being passed only on the basis of the occupation of the petitioner, which stands recognized as on date by the NDMC, in view of the detailed discussion hereinabove.
30. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent-NDMC shall consider the request of the petitioner for allotment of an alternate site, without going into the issue as regards the status, right or title of the petitioner with respect to the shop in question.
31. The aforesaid request of the petitioner shall be considered independently by the NDMC, on the basis of its policy. W.P.(C) 17458/2022. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2025