http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  585 of 1994

PETITIONER: Union of India

RESPONDENT: Reshma Yadav & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2006

BENCH: H.K.SEMA & P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  I.A.NO.54 IN CONTEMPT PETITION ( c ) NO.158/1998 IN WRIT PETITION ( CIVIL ) NO. 585 OF 1994

H.K.SEMA,J.

               Heard the parties.

               Writ Petition ( C ) No.585 of 1994 was disposed of by  this Court on 11.10.1996 inter alia with the following  directions: "Now, to take care of this illegality, we have to  take two steps. First, cancel the allotments.   To decide as to who should get the  shops/stalls, the Government would first  consider whether its policy of 1994, and  categorization made by it need alteration in  any way.  While undertaking this work, the  Government would first consider whether its  policy of 1994 and categorization made by it  need alteration in any way.  While undertaking  this work, the Government would make such  provisions in the policy which are just and fair.   After the policy has been framed the  shops/stalls would be allotted as per the policy  by following a procedure having the sanction of  law.  In case it would be that any of the  present allottee would not be the person so  selected, he/she shall be asked to vacate the  shop/stall by giving three moths time.  We  should require the Government to formulate  the policy within two months and thereafter to  complete the exercise of allotment within two  months.  Till then the present allottees would  be allowed to continue.    

       Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the policy was  revised by an Order dated 9.12.1996.  The dispute involved is  with regard to allotment of shop/stalls in Lodhi Road Complex  I and II, New Delhi.  The tenders were called.  The tenders  were opened in the presence of tenderers on 24.2.1997 at 3.00  P.M. As no tenders were received in respect of 6 shops/stalls  in Lodhi Road Complex-II, New Delhi on 24.2.1977.  Further  tenders were invited in respect of the said 6 shops/stalls,  which were opened in the presence of tenderers on 26.5.1997.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

However, no tender was received in respect of one shop (shop  No.1, Lodhi Road Complex-II, New Delhi).  Therefore, fresh  tenders were invited    in respect of shop No.1 but no tender  was received.  Therefore, again tender was held on 24.4.1998  in respect of Lodhi Road Complex-II, New Delhi.                  Undisputedly, in the aforesaid tenders the  respondents numbering 31 either did not participate or find  place amongst the persons so selected in tenders opened on  24.2.1997 and 26.5.1997.  They were asked to vacate the  shops/stalls noted against their names and hand over the  peaceful and vacant possession to the concerned CPWD within  three months from the date of issuance of notice.                 Having failed to comply with the notices,  Contempt  Petition ( C ) No.158 of 1998 was initiated against the  respondents.  However, the same was dropped by an order  dated 13th December, 2001 since the vacant possession was  already delivered.  The order dated 13th December, 2001 was  in the following terms:- "Since the possession has already been  delivered, the contempt proceeding is  dropped".  

               I.A.No.54 has been filed by Union of India for  direction to the alleged contemnors to pay  damages/compensation for their use and unauthorised  occupation of shops/stalls in their possession, after the orders  of this Court.  This Court issued notice to the respondents in  I.A.No.54 on 16.9.2002.                   On 14.3.2005 this Court passed the following  order:- "The applicant-Union of India is directed to file  a chart, within two weeks, giving the date of  vacation of each of the respondents and the  amount due till date of vacation.  The chart  shall indicate the date of which respective  respondents were required to vacate and also  the date of actual vacation along with the rate  at which the arrears have been calculated".  

               Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Union of India filed  a detailed chart giving the date of vacation of each of the  respondents and amount due till the date of vacation.  The  date of which respondents were required to vacate and also  the date of actual vacation along with the rate at which the  arrears have been calculated.   The chart detailing the arrears  of rent/damages payable by the contemnors is as follows:-

DETAIL OF ARREARS OF DAMAGES PAYABLE BY THE CONTEMNORS S.No. Shop/ Stall  No. Name of Contemnor/ occupant Date on  which respond- ents  were required

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

to  vacate Date of  actual arrears calculated  at the  vacation. Rate quoted by highest bidder (Rs.) Amount due till  the date  of  vacation (Rs.)

1 Shop No.6 LRC.1

Smt.Reshma Yadav. 25.6.97 17.7.2001 9410/- 458723/-

2. Shop No.8 LRC.1 Sh.Sant Lal Yadav 25.6.97 17.7.2001 8000/- 389988/-

3. Shop  No.9 LRC-1 Smt. Tara Chowdhary 25.6.97 8.11.2001 16,550/- 868324/- 4. Shop  No.10 LRC.1 Km.N.Lalitha 25.6.97 23.5.2003 10,893/- 772771/- 5. Shop

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

No.12 LRC-1 Sh.Deepak Kumar 25.6.97 17.7.2001 12,100/- 589856/- 6. Stall No.2 LRC-1 Smt. Neena Totalani 25.6.97 17.7.2001 2400/-

116997/- 7. Stall No.3 LRC-1 Sh.Intezar Ahmed 25.6.97 17.7.2001 3407/- 166087/- 8. Stall No.4 LRC-1 Mrs.Shahnaz Bano 25.6.97 17.7.2001 3194/- 165927/- 9. Stall No.5 LRC-1 Sh.Sudhir Tiwari 25.6.97 17.7.2001 3502/- 170718/- 10. Stall No.6 LRC-1 Smt.Renu Mathur 25.6.97 17.7.2001 4224/- 205914/- 11. Stall No.8 LRC-1 Smt.Harvin- der Kaur

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

25.6.97 17.7.2001 4680/- 228143/- 12. Stall No.10 LRC-1 Sh.Harish 25.6.97 30.7.1999 4503/- 113334/- 13. Stall No.14 LRC-1 Sh.Ashutosh Bhardwaj 25.6.97 25.8.1999 3501/- 91050/- 14. Stall No.15 LRC-1 Sh.Banarasi Dass 25.6.97 17.7.2001 2720/- 132596/- 15. Stall No.16 LRC-1 Sh.Jai Prakash Gupta 25.6.97 25.7.01 3905/- 191371/- 16. Stall No.17 LRC-1 Sh.Percy Pater James 25.6.97 17.7.2001 3505/- 170864/- 17. Stall No.18 LRC-1 Sh.Harpreet Singh 25.6.97 17.7.2001 3565/- 173788/-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

18. Stall No.19 LRC-1 Sh.Madan Mohan  Sharma 25.6.97 17.7.2001 3705/- 180613/- 19. Shop No.1 LRC.11 Sh.Karma Doorjee 12.9.97 25.7.2001 12,605/- 585375/- 20. Shop No.2 LRC.11 Smt.Asha  Singh 12.9.97 17.7.2001 6400/- 295564/- 21. Shop No.3 LRC.11 Sh.Dharma Bahadur 12.9.97 17.4.1998 12033/- 86638/- 22. Shop No.4 LRC.11 Sh.KP Singh 12.9.97 3.5.2000 9155/- 290490/- 23. Stall No.1 LRC.11 Sh.SS  Sharma 25.6.97 24.7.2001 6100/- 298743/- 24. Stall No.2 LRC.11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

Smt.Madhu 25.6.97 9.6.1998 3600/- 41400/- 25. Stall No.5 LRC.11

Sh.Gurbax  Lal 25.6.97 11.8.1998 2500/- 93887/- 26. Stall No.6 LRC.11 Sh.Gulshan Dhawan 25.6.97 17.7.2001 6100/- 297366/- 27. Shop No.3 Hanu- man Road Sh.Ashish Kumar 25.6.97 17.4.1998 11105/- 108459/- 28. Stall No.5 Hanu- man Road Smt.Pushpa Devi Sing 25.6.97 5.8.1999 4205/- 106645/- 29. Stall No.8 Hanu- man Road Sh.Sushil Sinha 25.6.97 16.12.1998 3755/- 66525/- 30. Stall No.12

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

Hanu- man  Road Smt.Kusum Sharma 25.6.97 17.7.2001 5240/- 255442/- 31. Shop No.2 Hanu- man Road Smt. Tulsi Balodi 25.6.97 16.7.2001 9200/- 448189/-

               Mr. Ranjeet Kumar learned amicus curiae appearing  for Union of India contended that the respondents  contumaciously flouted the orders passed by this Court by  remaining unauthorized occupants of shops/stalls and they  are liable to pay the damages/arrears for the period they have  occupied the shops/stalls unauthorisedly till the vacant  possession was delivered to the applicant.                   Per contra learned counsel appearing for the  respondents contended that this Court is not a proper forum  to grant such prayer.  According to learned counsel, such  powers can be exercised by the Estate Officer in terms of  Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised  Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter the Act).  We are unable to  countenance with this contention of the respondents.  The  entire cause of action as recited above arose not in a  proceeding initiated under the Act but for willful violation of  this Court’s Order.  The fact remained that the respondents  neither participated in the tender nor their names were  included from amongst the select list and remained  unauthorized occupants depriving the highest bidder to  occupy the shop/stall thereby incurring huge loss to the  exchequer by reason of their contemptuous misbehaviour   violating the order of the Highest Court of the land would   warrant to pay rent/damages at the rate quoted by the highest  bidder against their shops/stalls for their unauthorised use  and occupation till the date they delivered vacant possession  as per the chart furnished by the learned amicus curiae.                   In the result I.A.No.54 is allowed.  The respondents  are directed to pay the arrears of rent/damages as per the  chart within a period  of two months from today.  If the  amounts are not paid within the stipulated time, the petitioner  would be entitled to recover the respective amounts from the  respective respondents by all available coercive procedures.  In  that event, the respondents would be liable to pay interest at  6% per annum on the amounts payable from the date of this  order till its recovery.    I.A.No.54 is allowed and disposed of  accordingly.