Zurip Lapcha v. UOI and Ors

) $-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date qf hearing and Order: 23'd November, 201l + (1) W.P.(C) 80s9l20rl & C.M.No. 1814612011 SMT. SUMAN Through: iW.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (2) w.P.(C) 8060/2Qr1 & C.M.No. 18147/201r NIRAJ KUMAR + (3) w.P.(C) 8061/2011 & C.M.No. l8IsI/201r SHIBLAL SINGH Respondents + (4) W.p.(C) 8rr3t2011 & r82s3t20rr BHARTI GUPTA rhrough: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8LI3,8L14,8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201.1 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. 4( + (s) w.P.(c) 8rr4l20r I & 182ss/20rr SHASHANK KIJMAR GUPTA versus + (6) W.P.(C) 8rrsl2011 & C.M.Nq. I82s7l20lr AKLAKH RAHIM KHAN versus + (7) W.p.(C) 7077120rr & r6rs9l20rr VINEET KUMAR SHARMA Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mt.Ajay Tejpal, versus '.:'' + (8) w.P.(C) 7078/2011 & C.M.No. 1616I/2011 TRILOCHAN SINGH BHATIA Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajuy Tejpal, W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8068, 8061, 8LL3,8714,8LL5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, ' Page? 7703,7704 &7705/2011 \ + (9) w.P.(Q) 7Q7912011 & C.M.No. 1616312011 SLINITA KUMARI Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mt.Ajuy Tejpal, ..... ResPondents

(10)w.P.(C) 70801201 1 & C.M.No. I6I6st20II KULDEEP SINGH + (1l)w.P.(C) 763412011 & C.M.No. 172931281r NEELMANI rhrough: Mr.A.Maitriand*;i#tffili, versus + (12)W.P.(C) 763s/2011 & C.M.No. 1729s12011 ZONGPON LEPCHA versus W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8L13,8!!4, 8IL5,7077,7078,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/2011 Page 3 { ? versus + (14) w.P.(C) 770212Q11 & C.M.No. r74s6l20Il SHIVA NAND versus + (1s) W.P.(C) 7703/2011 & C.M.No. 17458/2011 ZURIP LAPCHA Petitioner Thrsugh: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, versus i. + (13) w.P.(C) 763612011 & C.M.Ne. 17297t2011 SMT.MUMTAZ + (16) W.P.(C) 770412011 & C.M.No. 1746012011 MAHINDER SINGH IJOI AND ORS W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,8061, 8113,81,L4,81t5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &77O5/20L1 Page 4 + (17) W.P.(C) 770s/20rr VINOD KUMAR & C.M.NI. 1746212011 Thrsugh: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.day Tejpal, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgrnent? To be referred to Reporter or

¶2Whether the judgment should

¶3reported in the Digest? No. { SUNIL GAUR. J. (Oral)

¶1The relief sought in this bunch of 17 petitions is to direct the respondents to pennit the petitioners who are running PCO Booth at the Railway $tation to sell other miscellaneous items to properly earn their livelihood as the case put forth by the petitioners is that running of PCO booth is a losing proposition now a days with the wide-spread use of mobile phones and cordless phones, etc.

¶2Petitioners claim that they are running the STD/ISD PCo booth since the year 1991 onwards and are earning 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.8059,8060,8061,8113,8tL4,8L15,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/20LL Page 5 miscellaneous items as well from their PCO booths. Few of the petitioners in this bunch of pgtitions are physical handicapped and their representation for permission to sell other items from the STDIPCO booths at the $.ailway Station was considered by the respondents and was rejected on 16.1 1 .20II by observing as under:- "As per the existing policy guidelines, STD/PCO Booths are allotted/b, a specific purpose and booth holders cannot be permitted to undertake other activities. To sell additional items, multipurpose ;talls are already available at the stations which provide better facility to passengers. Therefore, the request .for selling additional items fro* these booths is not considered desirable.

¶3The fate of the representations of the petitioners under the general oategory, w.ho are running STD/PCO bqoths at the Railway Station, has ngt yet been decided Qy the respondents.

¶4Leamed counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this court to the decisign of the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 1699/1987 titled as Sudhir Madan & 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 Court in the aforesaid decision is as under:- "The existing PCO booths wtll 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 Court the respondents are duty bound to permit 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.8059,8060,8061,8113,8J.14, 8LI5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/20L1 Page 6 ,?i r/ : r', Circular dt. 14.5.2004 qf the respondents and in particular to clause 8.7 thereof, which stipulates that the maximum period for running of such booth is 10 years 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 granted in some cases and now, if any extension would be granted, the samq would be in terms of the aforesaid Circular which holds the field as of today.

¶6Be that as i1 may. The question of extension of license granted to petitioners or to other similarly placed PCO booth operators is not being considered in these petitions. What is being considered is whether in view of the rejection of 16th November, 2011 of the representation of some of the petitioners, who were physically handicapped, whether the respondents 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 counsgl for the respondents states that as and when such representations are received from the petitioners, the same would be considered by affording a hearing to the petitioners and by passing of a speaking order thereon within four weeks from'the date of receipt of such representations.

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

¶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.8059,8060,8061,8IL3,81L4,8tI5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/20tL PageT of the remaining license period, the same would be considered the digturn of the Apex Court, as refemed to above.

¶10With aforesaid ob$ervations, thesg petitions as well m vlew as pending W.P.(C) No.8059,8050,8061,8L13,8IL4,8IL5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 4-applications are disposed of with no orders as to costs.

¶11A copy qf ihis order be given dasti te counsel for both the sides. NOVEMBER 23,2OII pkb NIL GAUR) 7703,7704 &7705/2O1"L Page B