JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner, Manoj Kumar, filed
CW. No.7245/2001 in November, 2001, seeking a
prohibition on NDMC from carrying out demolition
work at the Model Dhobi Ghat, Bapa Nagar, Dr. Zakir
Hussain Marg, New Delhi. He also filed subsequently
CW. No. 1184/2002, seeking a writ of mandamus to
the NDMC to issue licenses for the Dhobi Ghat to
the him and other persons, nominated by him.
Petitioner also sought a direction to NDMC to
cancel a license issued to Smt. Tara Devi, respondent
No.4, and her nominees.
2. In CW. No. 7245/2001, petitioner had
claimed that he had been carrying on the business
of laundry in the name and style of J & K Dry-
cleaners at the Model Dhobi Ghat, Bapa Nagar for
over 8 years. He claimed that he had been carrying
on the business since Dhobi Ghat was constructed
and he had a built a small jhuggi in the said Dhobi
Ghat. Petitioner claimed that jhuggi was sought to
be demolished without prior notice or any alternate
place been allotted to the petitioner. An
interim order, directing that the premises of the
petitioner be not demolished, was passed on
28.11.2001. Respondent/NDMC on being served in the
writ petition, claimed that demolition action had
been taken as far back as in March, 2001 and the
petitioner was attempting to build a jhuggi in the
garb of interim protection granted by the Court.
The interim order was modified on 29.5.2001 and
clarified to the extent that the same will not
come in the way of the respondent taking acting
for removal of any unauthorized structure, except
the Dhobi Ghat.
3. Pleadings were completed and counsel for
the parties had been heard and judgment reserved on 16.8.2002.
4. In CW. No. 1184/2002, petitioner claimed
that he was the duly elected Pradhan of the Bapa
Nagar Model Dhobit Ghat in the election conducted
on 2.9.2001. He, therefore, claimed that he was
entitled to the grant of license and for nominating
the other dhobis. Petitioner claimed that non-
recognition of the election conducted under the
auspices of the Delhi Pradesh Dhobi Ghats Maha
Sabha was illegal and was at the behest of the
vested interests. Petitioner claimed that the
stand of NDMC that respondent No.4, Tara Devi, was
the elected Pradhan of Dhobi Ghat was wrong as
Tara Devi’s election was through a political
person, which is not recognised by the NDMC.
Besides, she was not eligible being a woman to be
the President. In brief, he claimed that the
denial of issuance of license and the threat to
forcible removal of the petitioner from the site
was illegal.
5. Ms. Geeta Luthra, appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner
was duly elected in the election, but on account
of the clout of respondent No.4 with NDMC, name of
the petitioner was not included in the list of
elected Pradhans of Dhobi Ghat, as issued by NDMC.
Instead of name of respondent No.4, Tara Devi was
given at S.No. 10.
6. Learned counsel, Ms. Geeta Luthra,
further submitted that NDMC had acted in a discriminatory
manner inasmuch as the petitioner’s
jhuggi and structure at the Dhobi Ghat had been
removed and assets taken away by the police, while
the illegal structures of respondent No.4, Tara
Devi and her nominees were still there. Learned
counsel submitted that the elections of the petitioner
had been conducted by Prof. Chottey Lal,
whose recommendations for other Pradhans had been
accepted except for the petitioner.
7. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned counsel for
the respondent No. 4, Tara Devi, opposing the writ
petition, submitted that the petitioner was never
a licensed Dhobi. Petitioner at the relevant time
was not a licensed Dhobi and as such the question
of petitioner getting elected as a Pradhan did not
arise. He submitted that respondent No.4, Tara
Devi, had been elected in the election, which was
conducted on 25.6.2001 and was duly recognized by
NDMC. Learned counsel pointed out that once respondent No.4, Tara Devi, had been duly elected as
the Pradhan of Bapa Nagar Dhobi Ghat on 25.6.2001
for the year 2001-2002, there was no question of
the petitioner being elected on 2.9.2001, as is
sought to be claimed on the basis of an un-signed
letter issued by Prof. Chottey Lal, filed by the
petitioner.
8. Learned counsel also pointed out that
respondent No.4 had filed a CW. No. 3271/2001, which
was withdrawn since NDMC had already removed the
unauthorised structure of the petitioner. The
present writ petition is stated to have been filed
by way of counter blast by unauthorised occupants.
Learned counsel also pointed out that petitioner
had earlier filed a suit for injunction against
dis-possession. The prayer for injunction in the
suit had been dismissed. Petitioner has since then
preferred an appeal. Learned counsel further
submitted that an election, as is sought to be
raised by the petitioner relating to the officer
bearers of the association of Dhobis in respect of
Dhobi Ghat, would not be a matter amendable to writ
jurisdiction as no statutory rights are involved.
9. Ms. Hima Kohli, learned counsel for the
respondent/NDMC, stated that a meeting had been
organized on 15.10.2001, by the Director General
Welfare of NDMC and attended by the Director
(Enforcement) and representatives of the different
organisations of Dhobi Samaj. In the said meeting,
it was decided that all the elections of Pradhan
may be treated as suspended and representatives of
Dhobi Samaj were requested to give suggestions to
frame a new policy in the NDMC area. As a result,
as on date, there is no recognised Pradhan of the
various Dhobi Ghat,s including Bapa Nagar Model
Dhobi Ghat as the new policy is yet to be formulated.
10. From the foregoing discussion, it would
be seen, first of all, that the petitioner’s claim
to be the duly elected Pradhan of Bapa Nagar Dhobi
Ghat is strongly controverter and disputed by
respondent No.4, inasmuch as, while petitioner
claims to have been elected in a meeting of
2.9.2001, respondent No.4, Tara Devi, was elected
on 25.6.2001. Besides, the dispute as to who is
duly elected Pradhan of Dhobi Ghat does not involve
determination of any statutory rights and is
not to be done in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Petitioner does not even possess, as of now,
a license for the Dhobi Ghat. Even a licensed
Dhobi only has a right to the use of Dhobi Ghat
i.e. of the Thada. It does not entitled any of the
Dhobis is raise unauthorised construction or
structure on Government lands. It was on account
of this that the ex parte restraint was modified
vide order dated 29.5.2002, confining it to Dhobi
Ghat itself not being demolished. The grievance of
the petitioner that unauthorised structure of
other are remaining cannot be entertained under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, it may
be noted that learned counsel for the
respondent/NDMC has stated that NDMC would and is
committed to removal all unauthorised construction
Nothing further survives in view of this statement.
The writ petitions have no merit and are
dismissed.