Neelmani v. Union of India and Ors

$-1 *INTIIEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDELHI Date qthearing and Order: 23''d November' 2011 + (1) w.P.(C) 8Qs9l20I1 & C.M.No. 18146120t1 SMT. SUMAN i4 Ttuough: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, versus : UOI AND ORS + (2) w.P.(C) 8060/2011 & C.M.No. 1814712011 NIRAJ KUMAR Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.day Tejpal, + (3) w.P.(C) 806112011 & C.M.No. 181s1/2011 SHIBLAL SINGH ..... ResPondents + (4) W.P.(C) 8lL3l20rr & r82s3l20rr BII,ARTI GUPTA ..... ResPondents W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,8061,8Lt3,8 .1'J-4,8It5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &77o5lzot1 Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

(s) w.P.(c) 811412011 & r825sl20rr SHASFIANK KUMAR GUPTA Thrgugh: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, VqISUS , + (6} W.P.(C) 8IIsl20I1 & C.M.No. 182s7lzQIl '3: AKI,AKH RAI-IIM KHAN VEISUS J< + (7) W.p.(C) 7077t20rr & r6rs9t20r1 VINEET KUMAR SHARMA + (8) w.P.(C) 707812011 & C.M.No. 1616112011 TRILOCFIAN SINGH BHATIA versus W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8113, 8114, 8'J,L5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201.t Page2 \ + (9) W.P.(C) 707912011 & C.M.No. 1616312011 STINITA KIIMARI versus ;{- € -+ (1O)w.P.(c) 708012011 & c.M.No. I6r6sl20II KLILDEEP SINGH versus + (11)w.P.(C) 763412011 & C.M.No. 172931201r NEELMANI VEfSUS ?.' + (12)W.P.(C) 763s12011 & C.M.No. 1729s12011 ZONGPON LEPCHA W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,81.13,8L14,8M,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,-/704 &7705/201"1 Page 3 + (13) w.P.(C) 763612011 & C.M.No. 1729712Qr1 SMT.MUMTAZ Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr'.Ajay Tejpal, ..... ResPondents + (14) w.P.(C) 770212011 & C.M.No. 1745612011 c SI{IVA NAND + (15) w.P.(C) 770312011 & C.M.No. 1745812011 ZURIP LAPCHA Petitioner ' UOI AND ORS .... Respondents + (16) w.P.(C) 770412011 & C.M.No. 1746012011 MAHINDER SINGH W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,8LI3,8II4,8II5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201,r Page 4 + (r7) w.P.(C) 77Qsl20I1 & C.M.No. VINOD KIJMAR Through: T]OI AND ORS r7462t20tr Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶1Whether ihe Reporters of local pup"rl may be allowed to see the judgment? | To be referre{ to Reporter or not? I No. Whether the judgment should be I reported in the Digest? )

2.

¶3SUNIL GAUR. J. (Oral)

¶1The relief sought in this bunch of I7 petitions is to direct the r respondents to permit the petitioners who are running PCO Booth at the +.-' Railway Station to sell other miscellaneous items to properly earn their livqlihood as the case put fofth by the petitioners is that running of PCO booth is a losing proposition nqw a days with the wide-spread use of mobile phones and cordless phones, etc.

¶2Petitioners claim that they are running the S'ID/ISD PCO booth since the year 1991 onwards and are sarning their livelihood there-from and now a days it is becoming increasingly difficult to make both ends meet due to scant use of PCO booths and so they had made representation to respondents to permit the petitioners to sell other W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,8061,8t13,8LL4,8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7G34,7635,763G,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/2Or1 Page 5 miscellaneous items as well frorn their PCO booths. Few of the petitioners in this bunch of petitions are physical handicapped and their representation for perrnisqion to sell other items fi'om the STD/PCO bopths at the Railway Station was considered by the respondents and was rejeqted qn 16.11 .zQIl by observing as under:- "As per the existing policy guidelines, STD/PCO Booths are allottedft, a specific purpose and booth holders cannot be permitted to ttndertake other activities. To sell additional items, multipurpose stalls are already available at the stations which provide better facility to passengers. Therefore, the requqst for selling additional items front these booths is not considered desirable.

¶3The fate of the representations of the petitioners under the general ca(egory, who are running STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station, has not yqt beqn decided by the respondents.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this court to tlre decision of the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 169911987 titled as sudlir Msdan & ors vs. M.c.D. & ors., decided on 6.2.2007, wherein the issue of existing PCO Booths being allowed to switch over to other trade was considered and what was said by the Apex Courl in the afioresaid decision is as under:- "The existing PCO booths will also be allowed to switch over to other trades as the PCOs have become outdated due to inception or mobile phones/cordless phones."

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Courl the respondents are duty bound to pennit the petitioners to switch over to other trades as running of PCO booths at the Railway stations is a losing proposition. At this stage, leamed counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court to a w.P.(c) No. 8059, 8060, 8061., 8113, 8114, 8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,763s,7G36,7702, .( 7703,7704 &7705/20Lt Page 6 Circular dt. 14.5.2004 of the regpondents and in particular to clause 8.7 thereof, which stipulatqs that the maximum period for running of such boeth is 10 yqars and it is stated that in most of the cases, the said period has already elapsed and by taking a humanitarian view extensions have been already grantqd in some cases and ngw, if any extension would be granted, the same would be in terms of the aforesaid Circular which holds the field as of today.

¶6Be that as it rnay. The question of extension of license granted to u petitioners or to qther similarly placed PCO booth operators is not being considered in these petitions. What is being considered is whether in view of the rejection af 16tl' Novernber, 2011 of the representation of serne of the petitioners, who were physically handicapped, whether the respendents can be called upon to consider afresh the claim of the petitioners for switching over to other trades in terms of the dictum of the Apex Court as referred to above.

¶7Learned counsel for the respondents states that as and when such representations are received frorn the petitioners, the same would be considered by affording a hearing to the petitioners and by passing of a ' speaking order theregn within four weeks fi'om the date of receipt of such rqpresentations.

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions states that the comprehensive representations would be made to the respondents within fqur weeks.

¶9While leaving the question of extension of license to the PCO booth operators open, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents that as and when the respondents receive representations from the petitioners for switching over to other trades for W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,8L13,81L4,8L15,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201,r Page 7 the remaining licqnse period, the same would be considered in view of the dicturn of the Apex Court, as referred to above.

¶10With aforesaid observptions, thgse petitions as well as pending applications are disposed of with no orders as to costs. 1 1. A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for both the sides. ' NOVEMBER 23,2OII pkb W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,8061,8113,8L14,8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, ) NIL GAUR) 7703,7704 &7705/2011 Page B