GURSHARAN SINGH AND ORS. versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1154 · Decided: 02-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c than 
GURSHARAN SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1996 
(N.P. SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Town Planning: 
Allotment of shops-Roadside stall-holders naming stalls for more 
three decades-Such stalls required for public purpose of widening 
road-Municipal Conunittee on deliberation with Adn1inistration and Central 
Gove1nn1ent decided to induce the111 to nzove out lo a new n1arketing contplex 
where shops reserved for them at concessional licence fee and without trade 
zoning restrictions-But for other traders tenders invited for allotment of shops 
in same marketing complex without relaxation of licence fee and trade zoning 
D restric.tions--Such other traders submitted tenders indicating their choice of 
trade and offered licence fee at a much higher rate than the reserved rate-
Such other traders were allotted shops on conditions of,,,paynzent of licei1ce 
fee at offered rate and 1unning of trades which were specified to be canied on 
in the zones concented-Notices issued to these traders for violating zoning 
E system of marketing compleJrffe/d : Allotment of reserved shops made to 
roadside stall-holders in new marketing complex by treating them as separate 
class on a reasonable and rational basis without any partiality or bias-Fur-
ther, these other traders having questioned validity of allotment of reserved 
shops on relaxed rates/having restrictions could not at the same time claim 
F 
same benefit on ground that denial thereof was in violation of Art. 14-Con-
stitution of India, 1950 : Articles 14, 32 and 226. 
Equality before law-Held : It was a positive concept and could not 
be enforced in a negative 1nanner-Ull1ere State conunitted illegality or ir-
regularity in favour of an individual or group of individuals, others could not 
G claim same illegality or i"egu/arity on ground of denial thereof to thent-Only 
a claim which was just and legal could constitute ground for discrimination 
on basis that it was extended to some and denied to others. 
Article 136-lnterim order-Actus curiae neminem gravabit-
Municipal Committee granted licence to traders to open shops in new ma11<et-
H ing compleY>-Supreme Court issued imerim direction for payment of licence 
1154 
/ 
( 
I 
WI 
1 
' 
GURSHARAN SINGH v. N.D.M.C. 
1155 
Jee by these traders at concessional rates as allowed to be paid by roadside 
sta/1-holdm~Appeals by these traders dismissed-<:onscquently, these 
traders became liable to pay balance amount of arrears in laklzs of 
111pees-cMunicipal Committee claimed interest over aJTears-Held : Claim 
justified as an act of Cowt should prejudice no man-Although there was no 
reference to payment of interest in the intelim order that did not debar 
Supreme Coiut from pas-sing such an orde1~Taking all facts and circumstan· 
ces into consideration including lapse of more than 12 years since appeals 
were filed before Supreme Cowt and equities alising in favour of one pmty 
or tlze othe1; directions accordingly issued by Supreme Cowt. 
Maxims : 
1'.Actus culiae nen1inen1 gravabit'1-Meaning of 
A 
B 
c 
Certain roadside stall-holders were running stalls for more than 
three decades. The area was required for a public purpose of widening the D 
road. Accordingly, the respondent-Municipal Committee upon delibera· 
tion with the Administration and Central Government decided to induce 
these roadside stall-holders to move out of the area by reserving shops for 
them in a new marketing complex at a concessional licence fee without 
trade zoning restrictions. But for allotment of shops for the appellants in 
the same marketing complex tenders \\'ere invited without making any 
relaxation in respect of licence fee and trade zoning restrictions. The 
appellants submitted tenders indicating the trade which they wanted to 
E 
run in the shop and offered licence fee at a much higher rate than the 
reserved rate. Shops were allotted to the appellant' on conditions of 
payment of licence fee at the offered rate and running of trades which were F 
specified to be carried on in the zones concerned. But subsequent to 
allotment, the appellants disregarded and deviated from the conditions 
and commenced trades of their own choice not specified in the zones 
concerned. Notices were issued to the appellants for violating the zoning 
system of the marketing complex. 
The appellants filed a writ petition challenging. the validity of the 
aforesaid notices before the High Court. The Division 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.