Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from allotment of shops in Palika Bazar, a centrally air-conditioned shopping complex built by New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) in 1976. NDMC reserved 98 shops for stall-holders of Panchkuian Road to facilitate widening of that road, granting them concessional licence fee and exempting them from trade zoning restrictions but requiring them to carry only permissible trades listed in Appendix 'A'. For remaining 177 shops, NDMC invited tenders with trade zoning plan; successful tenderers, including appellants, offered licence fee higher than reserved rates and explicitly agreed in writing to carry on only trades specified for their zones. Later, some of these allottees violated zoning restrictions by opening shops for other trades, leading NDMC to issue notices. The affected licensees challenged notices in Delhi High Court, alleging discrimination under Article 14 because Panchkuian Road stall-holders in the same complex were allowed to run trades of their choice and paid lower licence fee. A single Judge of the High Court held NDMC's action discriminatory and arbitrary, quashing the notices. The Division Bench reversed, holding Panchkuian Road stall-holders constituted a separate class and dismissed the writ petitions, granting three months to revert to specified trades. Before the Supreme Court, appellants argued that NDMC had no justification to make allotments at different licence fee rates and with different trade zoning restrictions, treating equals unequally in violation of Article 14. They contended that Panchkuian stall-holders were similarly situated and should be subjected to the same restrictions and fees. NDMC submitted that Panchkuian Road stall-holders had been occupying stalls for over three decades on land needed for public purpose (road widening); to induce them to move, NDMC after consultation with Delhi Administration and Central Government offered reserved shops at concessional licence fee and with relaxed zoning as a rehabilitation measure. NDMC also stressed that appellants had participated in tenders with full knowledge of reserved shops and had voluntarily accepted terms; they could not resile from contractual obligations. The Court upheld the classification between the two groups as reasonable and rational, based on public purpose and rehabilitation. It held that Article 14 guarantees positive equality and cannot be enforced negatively to claim the same irregular or illegal benefit extended to another group. The Court observed that if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of someone, others cannot invoke jurisdiction to direct the State to commit the same irregularity. The Court also noted that Article 226 does not empower High Court to enforce such claim of equality. Consequently, appeals and writ petition were dismissed; NDMC's action was held not discriminatory, and appellants remained bound by the trade zoning restrictions agreed to at the time of allotment.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality Before Law - Article 14 Guarantees Positive Equality and Cannot Be Used to Claim Negative Equality - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 and Article 226 - Appellants sought same relaxation of trade zoning and lower licence fee granted to Panchkuian Road stall-holders, alleging discrimination; Court held that if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of a group, others cannot invoke jurisdiction to direct the State to commit the same irregularity; equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner; Held that Article 14 and Article 226 do not empower courts to perpetuate illegal benefit; claim rejected. (Paras not mentioned in judgment text) B) Constitutional Law - Reasonable Classification - Distinction Between Rehabilitated Stall-holders and Tender Allottees Is Reasonable - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - NDMC reserved 98 shops for Panchkuian Road stall-holders at concessional licence fee and without trade zoning restrictions to induce them to vacate land needed for road widening; tender allottees of 177 shops voluntarily bid higher and explicitly agreed to trade zoning and specified trades; Court held the two groups formed separate classes on rational basis; classification was not arbitrary or discriminatory; Held that differential treatment was justified. (Paras not mentioned in judgment text) C) Contract Law - Binding Nature of Allotment Terms - Allottees Who Voluntarily Accepted Trade Zoning Cannot Later Deviate - General principles of contract and allotment conditions - Licensees who submitted tenders with full knowledge of reserved shops and trade zoning plan, offered higher licence fee, and gave undertakings to abide by terms, later opened shops for other trades; Court held they were bound by their contractual undertakings and could not claim equality based on concessions to another class; Held that deviation from agreed zoning was impermissible and NDMC notices were valid. (Paras not mentioned in judgment text)
Issue of Consideration
Whether differential treatment in licence fee and trade zoning restrictions between Panchkuian Road stall-holders and tender allottees violated Article 14; whether allottees could claim negative equality based on concessions granted to another class.
Final Decision
Appeals and writ petition dismissed. NDMC's action was upheld as not discriminatory; appellants remained bound by trade zoning restrictions agreed to at the time of allotment; no negative equality under Article 14 can be claimed.
Law Points
- Article 14 guarantees positive equality and cannot be used to claim negative equality or perpetuation of illegality
- classification between groups based on rehabilitation for public purpose is reasonable
- allottees bound by voluntary contractual terms and trade zoning undertakings
