Allowed

M/S Shiv and Sons v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/17182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed the petitioner, a railway stall licensee, an extension of time of three months from the license expiry date (01.01.2025) to vacate the unit. The relief is based on parity with allottees in earlier batch decisions. The petitioner must file an undertaking to vacate within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time of three months from 01.01.2025 to vacate the stall, subject to license fee payment and filing of an undertaking within four weeks.

M/S Shiv and Sons Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~58

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17182/2024

¶3

M/S SHIV AND SONS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akshat Bajpai and Mr. Shobhit Trehan, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sushil Raaja, SPC for UOI.

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

O R D E R % 12.12.2024

¶8

CM APPL. 72966/2024 & CM APPL. 72967/2024 (for exemptions)

¶9

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The applications stand disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(C) 17182/2024 & CM APPL. 72965/2024 (for status quo)

¶12

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks an extension of its license for operating a General Minor Unit Catering Stall at Unit No. T/7 at Platform No. 4/5, Tatanagar Railway Station.

¶13

The petitioner was awarded the license on 06.05.2019. His license is set to expire on 01.01.2025, after grant of the period of dies-non for the COVID-19 lockdown period.

¶14

The petitioner’s case is based upon orders passed in similar cases. 4. Several allottees who held licenses for Multi-Purpose Stall [“MPS”] and Catering Stalls in various railway stations filed writ

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

W.P.(C) 17182/2024

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 08:31:55

¶18

petitions in this Court, challenging Clause 11 of Commercial Circular No. 20 of 2017 issued on 27.02.2017. They relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways and Others vs. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association (2016) 3SCC 580.

¶19

Before this Court, the writ petitions were divided into two batches, one dealing with MPS Stalls and other dealing with Catering Stalls. The MPS batch [W.P.(C) 2501/2023, etc.] was disposed on 29.05.2024, and the Catering batch [W.P.(C) 6771/2024, etc.] was disposed of on 30.05.2024. In both cases, the Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitions were devoid of merit but granted a period of three months (from the date of the extended license after taking into account the dies-non period, or from the date of judgment, whichever was later) to vacate the units in question, subject to the payment of user license fee.

¶20

I am informed that appeals to the Division Bench against these judgments were dismissed, but the matters were carried to the Supreme Court by some of the allottees, including SLP(C) 19229/2024 which applied to MPS cases. The Supreme Court disposed of the SLP by an order dated 27.08.2024, which reads as follows:-

¶21

“ 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶22

2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. We however extend the time granted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in its order dated 29.05.2024 by four months from today. All the allottees shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the stalls in question before the expiry of four months subject to filing of the usual undertaking before the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today.

¶23

3. Accordingly, the Special Leave petition is disposed of.

¶24

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ”

Page 2 of 4

W.P.(C) 17182/2024

In the meanwhile, some of the allottees, who had not earlier challenged the circular, filed writ petitions before this Court. Two orders placed on record show that the petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge [order dated 16.07.2024 in W.P.(C) 9231/2024 and order dated 30.07.2024 in W.P.(C) 10459/2024]. The coordinate Bench found that those allottees who had not come to the Court, cannot be granted the benefit of the extension. The aforesaid orders were carried to the Division Bench by way of LPA No. 746/2024 and LPA 767/2024. In both cases, the Court applied the principle of parity with the allottees who had filed writ petitions, and directed that the later petitioners ought to be granted three months’ time from the date of expiry of their licenses to vacate the catering stalls in question. It was further directed that, if the catering stalls were not removed with the extended period, the respondents would be at liberty to remove the goods forthwith, without filing any proceedings.

¶29

The petitioner in this petition was also not a party to the batch of petitions decided on 29.05.2024 and 30.05.2024, but seeks similar extension, relying upon the orders of the Division Bench granting parity. Although the prayer in this petition is for grant of an extension of three months, and an additional extension of four months, ostensibly in terms of the Supreme Court order dated 27.08.2024, the petition is pressed only to the extent of parity with the order of the Division Bench as the present petitioner was not party to the earlier batch of proceedings. Mr. Akshat Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that he will be satisfied with an order on the same lines as granted by the Division Bench in LPA 746/2024 and LPA 767/2024 i.e., that the petitioner be given three

Page 3 of 4

W.P.(C) 17182/2024

months’ time from the date of the expiry of the original or extended period of license [i.e. 01.01.2025].

¶34

Mr. Sushil Raaja, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents, does not dispute that the petitioner is similarly placed to the writ petitioner/appellant in the said two cases, but submits that, as before the Division Bench, the respondents dispute the applicability of the principle of parity.

¶35

As the Division Bench has already held that the principle is applicable to the similarly situated persons, I am of the view that the present petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.

¶36

The petition is disposed of with the direction that, subject to payment of license fee, the petitioner is granted time of three months from 01.01.2025, to vacate the stall in question.

¶37

The writ petitioner will file an undertaking that he will vacate the stall in question upon expiry of the period granted by this Court. The undertaking be filed within the period of four weeks from today. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondents will be free to remove his goods from the site.

¶38

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶39

DECEMBER 12, 2024/ MR/kb/

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

W.P.(C) 17182/2024

¶42

M/S Shiv and Sons v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shiv and Sons v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muskan Vs Central Board of Secondary Education (through Its Secretary) & Ors.

Muhimuddin Muhi Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Raj Pal Vs Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Central District and Ors.

Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs Vijay Bhatia and Ors.

Rajiv Enterprises (through Its Sole Proprietor Rajiv Daga) Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax

State of Haryana Vs B M Institute of Engineering & Technology & Anr.

Anil Bhasin Vs Gaurav Gogna and Others

Gourav Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dharam Singh Vs Rameshwar Dayal Sehrawat

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs M/S Ram Prakash

M K Chand Vs MCD through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Ashish Varshney Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Parivartan Residention Welfare Association Vs M.C.D & Anr.

M/S Ramkishan Transport Co. Vs Union of Indian through General Manager, Northern Railway