Petitioner sought a thirty-day extension to vacate a stall, relying on a coordinate bench order granting three months. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the stall was already voluntarily vacated on 15.06.2024, making further extension inapposite.
None granted; petition and pending applications dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~9
BHOLE SHANKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
“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 (frcm 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
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 14:22:42
the catering units in question. The same shall be subject to payment of usual license fee. It is directed accordingly.”
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 1, 2024 p’ma
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 14:22:42
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time to vacate the stall given that the stall has already been voluntarily vacated by the expiry of the previous extended period.
Bhole Shankar
Union of India
Purus Hindra Kumar Kaurav
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
