Smt. Suman v. UOI and Ors

SUNIL GAUR, J. (Oral) 7' 1. The relief sought in this bunch of 17 petitions is to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners who are running PCO Booth at the Railway Station 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-fi'om and now a days it is becorning increasingly difficult to rnake both ends meet due to" scant use of PCO booths and so they had made representation to respondents to pennit the petitioners to sell other W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,81L3,8LL4,8'1"15,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201r Page 5 ,/ miscellaneous items as well fiom their PCO booths. Few of the petitioners in this bunch of petitions are physical handicapped and their representation for permission to sell other items from the STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station was considered by the respondents and was rejected on 16.11 .2011by observing as under:- "As per the existing policy guidelines, STD/PCO Booths are allottedfor a specific purpose and booth holders cannot be permitted to und.ertake other activities. To sell additional items, multipurpose stalls 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 category, who are running STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station, has not yet been decided by the respondents.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this court to the decision of the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 169911987 titled as Sudhir Madun & 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 Couft in the aforesaid 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is as under:- "The existing PCO booths will also be allowed to switch over to other trades as the PCOs have become outdated due to inception or mobile phones/cordless phones.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 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, learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court to a W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,8061,8t13,81L4,81.15,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/2011 Page 6 Circular dt. 14.5.2004 of the reqpondents 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 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 petitioners or to other sirnilarly placed PCO booth operators is not being considered in these petitions. What is being considered is whether in view of the rejection of 16fl' November, 20L1 of the representation of some of the petitioners, who were physically handicapped, whether the respondents can be called upon to consider afresh the clairn of the petitioners for switching. over to other trades in terms of the dicturn of the Apex Court as referued,to above.

¶7Learned counsel for the respondents states flrat as and when such representations are received from the petitioners, the sarne would be considered by affording a hearing to the petitioners and by passing of a speaking order thereon within ,four weeks frorn 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 foru weeks. 9| While 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 frorn the petitioners for switching over to other trades for W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,8061,8113,8114,8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703.,7704 &77O5/2O1L v PageT q view"r@ the remaining licensg period, the sarne would be considered in the dictum of the Apex Couft, as referred to above.

¶10With aforesaid observations, these petitions as well as pending applicatiqns ?re disposed of with no orders as to costs.

¶11A copy Af this grder be given dasti to cpunsel for both the sides. NOVEMBER 23,20Ll pkb W.P.(C) No. 8059, 8060, 8061, 8IL3,8114,81.L5,7077 ,7078,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, ,f (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE 7703,7704 &7705/2011 Page B

$-t * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Dpte qthe.arinq.and Order: 23''d November, 201I + (1) W.P.(C) 80s9l20lr &, C.M.No. 18146120II SMT. SLMAN _ ,'. IJOI AND ORS + (2) W.P.(C) 806012011 & C.M.No. 1814712011 ,;;;'f.T:i, vqrsus ..... Itespondents + (3) W.P.(C) 806112011 & C.M.No. l8IsIlz}II -/ SHIBLAL SINGH VETSUS -; + (4) W.p.(C) 8rr3t20r1 & 182s3t201r BHARTI GUPTA rhrough: H*#ltri and Mr.Ajay rejpal, VETSUS W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,806tr,81L3,8IL4,8LL5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &77Q5/20t1 Page 1 I \ v 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. (5) W.P.(C) gtr4l2011& r82sst20rr SHASHANK KUMAR GUPTA VETSUS Through: Mr.Joydeep Maz.umdar, Advocate + (6) w.P.(C) 8IIsl20I1 & C.M.No. 1825712011 AKLAKH RAHIM KHAN + (7) W.p.(C) 7077t20tr & r6rset20rr VINEET KIIMAR SHARMA VETSUS llOI AND ORS .... Respondents J> VETSUS + (8) w.P.(C) 707812011 & C.M.No. 16161120II TRILOCHAN SINGH BHATIA uol AND oRS rhrough: Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate w.P.(c)No.8059,8060,906i,8L\3,g'J.',J.4,8!!5,7077,7079,7079,7090,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &770s/20Lt Page2 + (9) w.P.(C) 707912011 & C.M.No. 1616312011 SUNITA KUMARI IJOI AND ORS ..... ResPondents + (10)W.P.(C) 708012011 & C.M.No. 16r6sl20II KULDEEP SINGH VCTSUS + (1l)W.P.(C) 763412011 & C.M.No. 1729312011 VEISUS + (12)W.P.(C) 763sl20Ll & C.M.No. 1729s120i1 ZONGPON LEPCHA W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,8061,8L13,8LL4,8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, NEELMANI Il' 7703,7704 &77O512OI1) Page 3 + (13) W.P.(C) 763612011 & C.M.No. 172971201r SMT.MUMTAZ ""' Petitioner VETSUS ""' ResPondents Through: Mr.JpydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (14) W.P.(C) 770212011 & C.M.No. 1745612011 SHIVA NAND .."' Petitioner Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.day Tejpal, VETSUS ..... ResPondents + (1s) w.P.(C) 770312011 & C.M.No. 1745812011 ZURIP LAPCHA Petitioner VCTSUS ""' ResPondents + (16) w.P.(C) 770412011 &, C.M.No. 1746012011 MAHINDER SINGH VETSUS ..... ResPondents w.P.(c) No.8059,8060,8061, 81L3,81L4,8L15,7077,7078,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201L Page 4 + (17) w.P.(C) 770s12011 & Q.M.No. VINOD KUMAR Thrgugh: 17462120rr Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local pup.tl may be allowed to see the judgrnent? | To be referred to Reporler gr not? I No. Whether the judgment should be I reported in the Digest? ) 2. aJ.