W.P.(C)/7434/2025 of VIKAS CHAWLA Vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL on 12 October 2026

O R D E R

%

12.10.2026

1. By virtue of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: “(a) Set aside/ Quash the Speaking Order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Respondent;

(b) Calling for the records in respect of the illegal enhancement of license fee in relation to the subject shop No. 57, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi by the Respondent i.e., NDMC;

(c) Quash and set aside the illegal enhancement of license fee in relation to the subject shop No. 57, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi by the Respondent i.e., NDMC; (d) Direct the Respondent i.e., NDMC to recompute, communicate and charge the license fee in respect of shop no. 57, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi strictly in terms of its policy resolutions dated 30.09.2004 and 04.04.2018 by affording the Petitioner the option to pay one time transfer charge i.e., 50% of the L&DO land rates as prescribed thereunder; (e) Direct the Respondent i.e., NDMC to compute, communicate and refund the excess license fee illegally and arbitrarily collected from the Petitioner from the date of receipt of its application seeking transfer of the license of the subject shop no. 57, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi; (f) Direct the Respondent i.e., NDMC to forthwith process the transfer of the subject shop no. 57, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi in favour of the Petitioner in terms of its policies dated 18.03.1999, 30.09.2004, 16.08.2016 and 04.04.2018 which allow free transfers;

(g) Direct the Respondent i.e., NDMC to execute the license deed with the Petitioner; (h) Direct the Respondent to not interfere with the operations of the shop; (i) Direct the Respondent to explain the circumstances in which transfer applications have been allowed in the other similar cases;”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent has handed over a Cancellation Notice dated 26.12.2014 issued to one Mr. Hukum Chand, the original allottee of the subject premises involved, and with whom the petitioner had admittedly executed a Partnership Deed on 01.04.2009, which, as per learned counsel for the petitioner stands cancelled, is taken on record.

3. A bare perusal thereof reflects that the license in respect of the subject premises was cancelled by the respondent due to non-payment of outstanding dues and violation of the terms and conditions of the license deed.

4. When faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner is silent. So much so, there is not even an iota of averments qua this in the present petition filed by the petitioner.

5. However, he admits that the said Cancellation Notice dated 26.12.2014 has not been challenged by the petitioner till date, more so, since the petitioner has paid part of the dues to the respondent, as is recorded in the impugned order challenged herein.

6. Additionally, a perusal of the whole paper book reflects that though the petitioner has made a passing reference to the two alleged civil suits being Civil Suit No.84/2013 and Civil Suit No.427/2014 qua the subject premises, however, no documents qua them, i.e. neither any pleadings nor any final order/ judgment passed therein have been filed herein.

7. Significantly, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show any document(s) qua ownership of the petitioner, based whereon the petitioner can claim his legitimate right, title or interest in the subject premises.

8. Accordingly, finding no merit herein, the present petition is dismissed.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J OCTOBER 12, 2026/Ab