Disposed

Smt D Sandhya v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2024W.P.(C)/2369/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions concerning COVID-19 affected catering license extensions. Relying on a similar order, the court directed a three-month transition period for petitioners to vacate minor catering units, conditioned on payment of license fees, without deferring the hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted a period of three months from the date of the extended license period (considering dies non) or the date of this order, whichever is later, to vacate catering units, subject to pay

Smt D Sandhya Vs Union of India & Ors. — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 100, 108, 109, 116 to 121, 123 to 125

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2369/2024 & CM APPL 9803/2024

¶4

SMT D SANDHYA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Rishesh Mani Tripathi, Adv. for UOI

¶8

93 + W.P.(C) 2447/2024 & CM APPL. 10023/2024

¶9

SMT. P. MOUNIKA & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶10

Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶11

versus

¶12

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Counsel (appearance not given)

¶13

94 + W.P.(C) 2485/2024 & CM APPL. 10188/2024

¶14

SMT. REKHA MEENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶15

versus

¶16

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Counsel (appearance not given)

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 23/07/2024 at 11:59:19

¶19

¶20

- W.P.(C) 3366/2024 & CM APPLs. 13850/2024, 39910/2024

¶21

MEENA TIWARI .....Petitioner

¶22

Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶23

versus

¶24

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	.....Respondents
Through:	Mr. Avnish Singh, Sr. Panel
	Counsel alongwith Mr. Kapil
	Dev Yadav, G.P. with Mr.
	Devendra Singh and Mr. D.
	Govil Upadhyaya, Advocates for UOI

¶25

¶26

+ W.P.(C) 3896/2024 & CM APPLs. 16032/2024, 39761/2024

¶27

M/S R.K FOOD PRODUCTS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶28

versus

¶29

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Counsel (appearance not given) 100

¶30

W.P.(C) 4019/2024 & CM APPL 16401/2021 KHALID USMAN

¶31

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶32

versus

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 23/07/2024 at 11:59:19

¶35

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Gusain, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Kautilya Birat, G.P. and Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocates for UOI

¶36

108

¶37

W.P.(C) 7257/2024 & CM APPLs. 30255-57/2024

¶38

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶39

RENU VERMA

¶40

versus

¶41

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, G.P. for UOI

¶42

¶43

- W.P.(C) 7279/2024 & CM APPLs. 30422-24/2024

¶44

ABHA SAHU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶45

versus

¶46

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI

¶47

116

¶48

- W.P.(C) 13986/2023 & CM APPL 55214/2023

¶49

ILIYAS .....Petitioner

¶50

Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

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 23/07/2024 at 11:59:19

¶53

versus

¶54

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Ishank Jha, Advs. with Mr. Deepak Tanwar, G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3

¶55

117

¶56

+ W.P.(C) 14688/2023 & CM APPL 58475/2023

¶57

KAMLA BAI GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶58

versus

¶59

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Mr. Abhishreet Singh and Mr. Abhijit Singh, Advocates for UOI

¶60

118

¶61

W.P.(C) 16203/2023 & CM APPL 65116/2023

¶62

SAROJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶63

versus

¶64

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatin Singh, Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Mr. Shivam Gaur, Mr. Kshitij Joshi and Mr. Aryan Kumar Advocates for Respondent No. 1/UOI.

¶65

This is a digitally signed order.

¶66

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 23/07/2024 at 11:59:19

¶67

119

¶68

+ W.P.(C) 16213/2023 & CM APPL 65201/2023

¶69

MEGHNA RAJENDRA KUM	AR	.....Petitioner
Through:	Mr. Jitender Mehta	, Mr. Lalit
	Kumar, Mr. Pankaj	Mishra and
	Mr. Vikas Sharma,	Advocates

¶70

versus

¶71

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal and Mr. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal, Advs. for UOI Mr. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal, Adv.

¶72

120

¶73

- W.P.(C) 16301/2023 & CM APPL 65650/2023

¶74

SAGAR MANGLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶75

versus

¶76

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. G.D. Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Hardik Bedi, G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Ms. Hina, Adv. for DUSIB

¶77

121

¶78

- W.P.(C) 16705/2023 & CM APPL 67327/2023

¶79

ARTI DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶80

versus

¶81

This is a digitally signed order.

¶82

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 23/07/2024 at 11:59:19

¶83

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naginder Benipal, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms. Vidhi Gupta, G.P. and Mr. Ankit, Adv. for UOI

¶84

123

¶85

W.P.(C) 1835/2024 & CM APPL 7673/2024

¶86

SANGEETA JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶87

versus

¶88

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI 124

¶89

W.P.(C) 2831/2024 & CM APPLs. 11634/2024, 39985/2024

¶90

M/S M.Y. AND SONS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶91

versus

¶92

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, G.P.

¶93

125

¶94

W.P.(C) 2832/2024 & CM APPL 11637/2024

¶95

PUSHPA DEVI AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates

¶96

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 23/07/2024 at 11:59:19

¶97

versus

¶98

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

¶99

Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Hilal Haider, G.P. for UOI

¶100

CORAM:

¶101

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶102

O R D E R % 18.07.2024

¶103

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submits that the main controversy involved in these cases stands covered by the decision dated 30.05.2024 passed in a batch of cases being W.P.(C) 6771/2024 and other connected matters.

¶104

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that some of the parties being aggrieved by the similar decision passed in W.P.(C) 2501/2023 titled as Urmila Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. are before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 566/2024 titled as Ishwarlal Jawarlal Joshi v. Union of India & Ors. He, therefore, suggests that since the controversy with respect to multipurpose stalls (MPS) cases pertaining to Covid-19 extension is sub judice before the Division Bench, the hearing of these cases be deferred till 23.07.2024.

¶105

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 2447/2024 submits that so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he does not press the relief.

¶106

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relief prayed in the instant writ petition.

¶107

The following paragraphs of the order dated 30.05.2024 passed

¶108

This is a digitally signed order.

¶109

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 23/07/2024 at 11:59:19

¶110

by this Court in W.P.(C) 6771/2024 deal with the similar controversy:-

¶111

“25. It is evident from the perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 21.05.2020 that it takes into consideration the ground reality that there were variations across the stations regarding the impact of Covid-19. The actual date on which the catering units could be made operational, and the timeline for restoration of passenger traffic, varied from station to station. It was directed that the period during which license was non-operational shall be treated as dies non period and the contract period shall be extended accordingly. As noticed above, the determination in this regard was left to be made by the respective zonal/divisional railways.

¶112

26. Taking into account the above, the concerned zonal/divisional railways had worked out the dies non period based on the ground realities prevalent at the concerned railway stations and have accordingly extended the license period. It cannot be said that the extent of extension to which the petitioners are entitled, has been worked out on a completely arbitrary basis. The contentions in this regard are devoid of merit.

¶113

***

¶114

29. Once the respondents have disclosed the basis for working out the dies non period, this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot get into intricacies of the factual situation subsisting at each railway station to virtually exercise appellate jurisdiction in respect of the extent of extension granted to individual licensees. It is noticed that individual license agreement executed between petitioner and the concerned railway authorities as well as the Catering Policy 2017, contain an arbitration clause if the petitioners are aggrieved on account of insufficiency of extension on account of the Covid-19 situation or if they wish to claim damages on any account, they are at liberty to invoke the arbitration clause and initiate appropriate proceedings. The rights and remedies of the petitioners in this regard are expressly kept open.”

¶115

It is also to be noted that the Court, while considering various aspects, including operation of minor catering units for an indefinite period of time, directed three months’ extension enabling the petitioner therein to make a transition and switch to alternative vending arrangements. Paragraph No.30 of the decision dated

¶116

This is a digitally signed order.

¶117

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 23/07/2024 at 11:59:19

¶118

30.05.2024 reads as under:-

¶119

“30. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. However, since the petitioners have been operating these minor catering units for a significant period of time, to enable the petitioners to make a transition and make alternative vending arrangement/s, this Court considers it apposite to grant a period of 3 months to the petitioners (from the date of the extended license period after taking into account the dies non period; OR from the date of this judgment, whichever is later) to vacate the catering units in question. The same shall be subject to payment of usual license fee. It is directed accordingly.”

¶120

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court is not inclined to defer the hearing of these cases and instead dispose of the instant writ petitions with the directions that the petitioners shall be granted a period of three months (from the date of the extended license period after taking into account the dies non period; OR from the date of this order, whichever is later) to vacate the catering units in question. The same however, shall be subject to payment of usual license fee.

¶121

With the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed of alongwith pending applications.

¶122

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶123

JULY 18, 2024 p’ma

¶124

Smt D Sandhya v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt D Sandhya 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

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sh. Om Prakash Singh

M/S Paras Impex Vs Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export) & Ors.

Hazrat Nizamuddin Welfare Association Regd Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. & Ors.

Evermore Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7-1 Delhi

Touqeer Ajaz Qamar Vs Govt (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Asif Ahmed Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Rishikesh Sharma

Bain Singh & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Hazrat Nizamuddin Welfare Association Regd Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. & Ors.

Mrs Kamlesh Khanna Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

Ravinder Chauhan Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Adhikhar Suraksha Hamara Abhiyan Sanstha Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Nafe Singh Vs State Transport Authority & Ors.