{"id":23229,"date":"2002-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002"},"modified":"2019-02-17T10:58:08","modified_gmt":"2019-02-17T05:28:08","slug":"central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Central Radio &amp; Electronics &#8230; vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Central Radio &amp; Electronics &#8230; vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>A.K. Sikri, J.  <\/p>\n<p>1. The   petitioners,  who   are  five  different<br \/>\n           traders&#8217;  associations,  representing  the  traders  of<br \/>\n           Bhagirath  Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi have filed this<br \/>\n           writ  petition  by way of Public  Interest  Litigation.<br \/>\n           They  are  concerned with the squatters in  this  area.<br \/>\n           The prayer made in this writ petition runs as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>                     1.   To      issue         an      appropriate<br \/>\n                         writ\/order\/directions  in  the nature  of<br \/>\n                         MANDAMUS  whereby  the   respondents   be<br \/>\n                         directed  to refrain from issuing  and\/or<br \/>\n                         allotting  any  place on Mor Sarai  road,<br \/>\n                         either  road or pavements, for being used<br \/>\n                         as  hawking  and squatting sites  by  the<br \/>\n                         hawkers and squatters;\n<\/p>\n<p>  CWP NO:7741\/2000   <\/p>\n<p>                     2.   Further  directions to the respondents in<br \/>\n                         the  nature  of  a declaration  that  Mor<br \/>\n                         Sarai (shown more appropriately in RED in<br \/>\n                         site plan) would remain on AS IS WHERE IS<br \/>\n                         BASIS  and that there can be no change of<br \/>\n                         user  of the said place by respondents in<br \/>\n                         any manner by allotting any space over it<br \/>\n                         for use as hawking and squatting sites;\n<\/p>\n<p>                     3.   The  Land  &amp; Estate Department of MCD  be<br \/>\n                         directed  to file a site plan of the said<br \/>\n                         Mor  Sarai Road stating therein the  area<br \/>\n                         of pavement existing at present.\n<\/p>\n<p>                     4.   Further   direction  to   appoint   Local<br \/>\n                         Commissioner   which  may   comprise   of<br \/>\n                         Officers  of  MCD,  Delhi  Fire  Service,<br \/>\n                         Delhi  Traffic Police and Office  bearers<br \/>\n                         of  petitioner  Associations  to  apprise<br \/>\n                         this  Court  of the factual  position  in<br \/>\n                         regard  to Mor Sarai Road and\/or the site<br \/>\n                         where  it is proposed to allot  Tehbazari<br \/>\n                         sites.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.                     From  a perusal of the aforesaid prayer it  is<br \/>\n           clear  that the petitioners are aggrieved against grant<br \/>\n           of Tehbazari rights to the hawkers and squatters on Mor<br \/>\n           Sarai  road  and pavements.  It is stated in  the  writ<br \/>\n           petition   that   although   Mor   Sarai  road   is   a<br \/>\n           non-squatting  zone,  the respondents are proposing  to<br \/>\n           issue  Tehbazari licenses to the hawkers and  squatters<br \/>\n           which would create inconvenience to the general public,<br \/>\n           shopkeepers  of  the  market as well  as  residents  of<br \/>\n           Railway  colony  known  as  Mor Sarai  colony.   It  is<br \/>\n           mentioned  that  this road is 30 ft.wide  inclusive  of<br \/>\n           pavements and on this narrow road no further congestion<br \/>\n           can  be afforded by allowing the squatting of the  area<br \/>\n           by hawkers and squatters.  It is, inter alia, stated in<br \/>\n           the  writ  petition that even presently the  said  road<br \/>\n           remains  jam  packed  throughout the day due  to  heavy<br \/>\n           movement  of pedestrian and other vehicular traffic and<br \/>\n           that  unauthorised  hawkers  and   squatters  are  also<br \/>\n           squatting  on the said road.  It is further stated that<br \/>\n           the  proposed change of user of the said Mor Sarai road<br \/>\n           would  not  only  lead to more congestion,  choking  of<br \/>\n           roads  and traffic jams but would also lead to loss  of<br \/>\n           trade  and business for the shopkeepers and businessmen<br \/>\n           of  the area.  It is stated that in the vicinity of Mor<br \/>\n           Sarai  there are four schools including the MCD Primary<br \/>\n           School,  Presentation Convent School and Kucha Jogdhyan<br \/>\n           Senior  Secondary School for girls.  It is also  stated<br \/>\n           that  the  Dhalao on Mor Sarai is the only  place  from<br \/>\n           where  the  truckloads  of garbage are  lifted  by  the<br \/>\n           Municipal  trucks.  On the said road are installed  the<br \/>\n           high  tension  transformers by the Delhi Vidyut  Board.<br \/>\n           Also  various  civic  amenities such  as  MTNL  cables,<br \/>\n           electrical  wires  of DVB, sewer lines of the  Sewerage<br \/>\n           department  pass underneath the road on Mor Sarai road.<br \/>\n           All these amenities require frequent maintenance by the<br \/>\n           departments  concerned  and  in case  any  hawking  and<br \/>\n           squatting  or Tehbazari is permitted then carrying  out<br \/>\n           the  maintenance  services  would become all  the  more<br \/>\n           difficult  and  the woes already being suffered by  the<br \/>\n           shopkeepers would also aggravate.  It is also stated in<br \/>\n           the  writ  petition that taking into consideration  the<br \/>\n           fact that the respondent MCD proposes to give Tehbazari<br \/>\n           sites  to  hawkers and squatters on Mor Sarai road,  it<br \/>\n           has completely forgotten the fact that a statutory duty<br \/>\n           is  cast  upon  it to keep in mind  that  all  policies<br \/>\n           proposed  to  be  implemented  should more  be  in  the<br \/>\n           interest  of the general public rather than against the<br \/>\n           public  policy.   The  Supreme  Court as  well  as  the<br \/>\n           Govt.of  NCT  of  Delhi and the  Union  Government  are<br \/>\n           making  concerted  efforts and plans to  decongest  the<br \/>\n           walled  city but the officials of MCD have other things<br \/>\n           in  mind  and  are using their energies  in  the  wrong<br \/>\n           direction for their personal gains.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.                    The  grant  of  Tehbazari licenses by  MCD  to<br \/>\n           hawkers  and squatters in different parts of Delhi  has<br \/>\n           chequered  history.   As per the averments made in  the<br \/>\n           writ  petition which are substantially undisputed,  the<br \/>\n           first  petition  in this respect being CWP No.   552\/87<br \/>\n           entitled  Rajinder Kumar Vs.  MCD was filed in the Apex<br \/>\n           Court.   On  31st October, 1987 an order was passed  in<br \/>\n           this  writ  petition  on  the assurance  given  by  the<br \/>\n           counsel  for  the MCD to the effect that the MCD  shall<br \/>\n           furnish  a  list of all areas available  for  Tehbazari<br \/>\n           licenses  under its jurisdiction and shall also provide<br \/>\n           a  site  plan indicating the localities of such  areas.<br \/>\n           Thereafter  another  writ petition, namely, Gainda  Ram<br \/>\n           Vs.   MCD  (1687\/87)  the   Supreme  Court  passed  the<br \/>\n           following order on 12th May, 1993:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                        &#8220;The  MCD  will also ensure  that  future<br \/>\n                      encroachments do not take place defeating<br \/>\n                      the  rights of existing squatters\/hawkers<br \/>\n                      governed  under the scheme.  It will also<br \/>\n                      protect  the interest of the  shopkeepers<br \/>\n                      as  they  too have a similar right  under<br \/>\n                      Article 21 of the Constitution.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>4.                    It  is not in dispute that matters  concerning<br \/>\n           squatters\/hawkers have come up before the Apex Court in<br \/>\n           various cases and directions in these cases were passed<br \/>\n           from  time to time.  The relevant order would be  order<br \/>\n           dated  1st  May,  1997 in the case of  Gainda  Ram  and<br \/>\n           Others  Vs.  M.C.D.  and Others .   The portion of the said order, material for our<br \/>\n           purposes, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;A  fresh  exercise  is   ordered  to  be<br \/>\n                      carried  out by the Municipal Corporation<br \/>\n                      of   Delhi  to   identify  new   approved<br \/>\n                      squatting  sites  in all the Zones.   The<br \/>\n                      Zonal  Heads, Administrative Officers  of<br \/>\n                      the  Zones, representative of the Traffic<br \/>\n                      Police  and two or three  representatives<br \/>\n                      of  the hawkers of the zones selected  on<br \/>\n                      random   basis  shall    identify   fresh<br \/>\n                      squatting  zones  so that  squatters  are<br \/>\n                      properly  rehabilitated  and  not  simply<br \/>\n                      uprooted   to  deprive   them  of   their<br \/>\n                      livelihood&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>                     After     finalising         the     list<br \/>\n                      of&#8230;&#8230;approved  squatting  zones  fresh<br \/>\n                      preference  applications shall be invited<br \/>\n                      and  thereafter allotments be made  first<br \/>\n                      in    accordance       with    preference<br \/>\n                      applications&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 5.                    After the aforesaid order the Zonal Committees<br \/>\n           were  constituted by the MCD in 12 Zones.   Thereafter,<br \/>\n           another  order dated 13th April, 2000 was passed by the<br \/>\n           Supreme  Court  directing  the   MCD  to  complete  the<br \/>\n           identification of squatting sites..  It was followed by<br \/>\n           order  dated 28th July, 2000 directing the MCD to  file<br \/>\n           an  affidavit  stating the squatting and  non-squatting<br \/>\n           sites  identified by the Zonal Committee along with map<br \/>\n           showing the squatting area in `Green&#8217; and non-squatting<br \/>\n           area  in `Red&#8217;.  Vide order dated 4th August, 2000  the<br \/>\n           Supreme Court accepted the aforesaid report of the MCD.<br \/>\n           The relevant portion of this order reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                        &#8220;In  the  light of the affidavit in  I.A.<br \/>\n                      No.317  dated  02nd August 2000 filed  in<br \/>\n                      the  Court  today  on behalf  of  M.C.D.,<br \/>\n                      which  is accompanied by a site plan,  it<br \/>\n                      is  seen that areas marked in red  colour<br \/>\n                      are not treated to be squatting zones but<br \/>\n                      the  lanes  marked  in green  colour  are<br \/>\n                      shown  to  be squatting  zones.   Learned<br \/>\n                      counsel  for  the   applicants  in  these<br \/>\n                      applications  submit that at least in the<br \/>\n                      admitted  areas  which  are shown  to  be<br \/>\n                      squatting  zones  marked in green  colour<br \/>\n                      and  where,  according to her,  squatters<br \/>\n                      are   already  squatting,   they  may  be<br \/>\n                      permitted  to squat.  So far as the areas<br \/>\n                      shown  in  green colour in the site  plan<br \/>\n                      are  concerned, learned counsel appearing<br \/>\n                      for  the  shopkeepers had  no  objection.<br \/>\n                      Learned  counsel for the M.C.D.  also has<br \/>\n                      no objection.  Therefore, in the light of<br \/>\n                      what is stated in paragraph 4 of the said<br \/>\n                      affidavit  as  regards   New  Lajpat  Rai<br \/>\n                      Market   and   Lajpat   Rai  Market,   no<br \/>\n                      squatting  in  front of the said  markets<br \/>\n                      abutting  Subhash Marg and Chandni  Chowk<br \/>\n                      is   permissible.    Subject    to   that<br \/>\n                      exception,  in the areas marked green  in<br \/>\n                      the site plan the applicants, if they are<br \/>\n                      already  squatting, will be permitted  to<br \/>\n                      squat till furthers in the other I.As.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     6.                As per the counter affidavit filed by the MCD,<br \/>\n           the  matter was listed again on 1st December, 2000 when<br \/>\n           the Supreme Court gave general directions to the MCD to<br \/>\n           complete  the work of allotment sites in the identified<br \/>\n           squatting   areas   within   two-three  months.    This<br \/>\n           affidavit  further  states  that  Mor  Sarai  has  been<br \/>\n           identified as squatting area and since the squatting is<br \/>\n           permitted there, the MCD can give Tehbazari licenses in<br \/>\n           this area.  It is further stated that the MCD would not<br \/>\n           allow  squatting in the area which has been  identified<br \/>\n           as   non-squatting.   Mr.D.K.Mehta,   learned   counsel<br \/>\n           appearing  for the petitioners, submitted that the site<br \/>\n           plan  filed before the Supreme Court, copy of which was<br \/>\n           filed  in these proceedings as well, was not  correctly<br \/>\n           prepared  and further that he argued that permitting of<br \/>\n           squatting  on  that  area  in question  would  lead  to<br \/>\n           various  difficulties  as  pointed   out  in  the  writ<br \/>\n           petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.             Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\n           parties  and  in view of various orders passed  by  the<br \/>\n           Hon&#8217;ble  Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that  the<br \/>\n           grievances,  if any, of the petitioners can be taken up<br \/>\n           by the petitioners by filing appropriate proceedings in<br \/>\n           the  Supreme  Court  only as, MCD has treated  the  Mor<br \/>\n           Sarai as squatting zone which has been permitted by the<br \/>\n           Supreme  Court.   This court therefore cannot pass  any<br \/>\n           order  or give any direction to the MCD which would  be<br \/>\n           contrary to the directions given by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>          8.           This  writ  petition is accordingly  dismissed<br \/>\n           with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Supreme<br \/>\n           Court for appropriate directions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Central Radio &amp; Electronics &#8230; vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002 Author: A Sikri Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioners, who are five different traders&#8217; associations, representing the traders of Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi have filed this writ petition by way of Public [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23229","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Central Radio &amp; Electronics ... vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Central Radio &amp; Electronics ... vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-17T05:28:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Central Radio &amp; Electronics &#8230; vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-17T05:28:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1658,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Central Radio &amp; Electronics ... vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-17T05:28:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Central Radio &amp; Electronics &#8230; vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Central Radio &amp; Electronics ... vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Central Radio &amp; Electronics ... vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-17T05:28:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Central Radio &amp; Electronics &#8230; vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-17T05:28:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002"},"wordCount":1658,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002","name":"Central Radio &amp; Electronics ... vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-17T05:28:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-radio-electronics-vs-m-c-d-and-ors-on-22-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Central Radio &amp; Electronics &#8230; vs M.C.D. And Ors. on 22 March, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23229","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23229"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23229\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23229"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23229"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23229"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}