Supreme Court Upholds Division Bench Decision on Trade Zoning Discrimination

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's findings in a case concerning discriminatory trade zoning restrictions and licensing fees. The Court ruled that the differential treatment of stall-holders from Panchkuian Road was justified due to their unique circumstances, dismissing claims of discrimination. Additionally, the Court directed the appellants to pay arrears with interest based on their compliance with trade zoning regulations, setting specific repayment terms and rates. The appeals and writ petition were dismissed, with detailed instructions for compliance and no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Discriminatory application of trade zoning restrictions.
2. Differential licensing fees.
3. Validity of notices issued by N.D.M.C.
4. Payment of arrears and interest.

Summary:

1. Discriminatory Application of Trade Zoning Restrictions:
The appellants, licensees of shops in Palika Bazar, challenged the discriminatory enforcement of trade zoning restrictions by the New Delhi Municipal Committee (N.D.M.C.). The appellants argued that while they were subjected to strict trade zoning restrictions, the stall-holders from Panchkuian Road, who were relocated to Palika Bazar, were not. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's finding that the Panchkuian Road stall-holders formed a separate class due to their long-standing occupation and the public purpose of road widening. The relaxation of trade zoning restrictions for them was deemed reasonable and rational.

2. Differential Licensing Fees:
The appellants contended that the differential licensing fees charged to them compared to the Panchkuian Road stall-holders were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that the lower licensing fees for Panchkuian Road stall-holders were justified as an inducement for them to vacate their previous locations for public convenience. The appellants, having agreed to the terms of allotment, could not claim similar concessions.

3. Validity of Notices Issued by N.D.M.C.:
The appellants had violated the trade zoning restrictions they had agreed to, leading to notices from N.D.M.C. The High Court initially quashed these notices, but the Division Bench reversed this decision. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's ruling, stating that the appellants could not claim discrimination under Article 14 for enforcement of agreed terms.

4. Payment of Arrears and Interest:
The Court addressed the issue of arrears due to interim orders allowing payment at reserved rates instead of agreed rates. It directed the appellants to pay the balance arrears with interest, differentiating between those who deviated from trade zoning and those who did not. Specific timelines and interest rates were set for repayment. The Court also ruled that no damages would be paid for cancellation of licenses and that all notices of cancellation would be withdrawn upon compliance with the directions.

Conclusion:
The appeals and writ petition were dismissed, with the Court providing detailed directions for payment of arrears and compliance with trade zoning restrictions. No costs were awarded.

---