Rajender Prasad Aggarwal v. Delhi State Civil Supply Corp. Ltd. And ORS.

$~23 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2823/2018 and CM No. 11380/2018 RAJENDER PRASAD AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus DELHI STATE CIVIL SUPPLY CORP. LTD.

AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms Sakshi Popli with Ms Pritika and Mr Ajit Gaur, Advocates for R-1.

Mr Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel with Ms Nikita Goyal, Advocate for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 28.03.2019 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- "i) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to direct all the L-6 Vends in Delhi/New Delhi to maintain the appropriate stock of the brands of the choice of the customers and also display the board at all I-6 vends and Country Liquor Vends (C. L. Vends) in Delhi showing the stock of all brands are available in the vend with the rates of every brand as well as name of the officials with whom the customer can contact with phone number outside the vends in Delhi; ii) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to also provide uniform with name plate and designation to the employees appointed at all vends in Delhi/New Delhi by the respondents and not to allow any outsider to sell the liquor at any vends at

Delhi/New Delhi;"

2.

It is seen from the averments made in the petition that they are general in nature, and no instance has been provided by the petitioner. Although, the petitioner submits that there are unauthorised persons operating in shops/liquor vends, and further that the stock of the brands available at the vends is not displayed; there is no specific material to establish the same. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that the liquor vends are required to put up a display board to indicate the stock available with them. Further, the persons working in the liquor vend are also required to have a name plate.

4.

Clearly, if the aforesaid regulations have not been complied with, it would be open for any aggrieved party to make a complaint, and avail of the remedies as available in law. However, it would not be apposite to entertain a petition, wherein, broad and general statements are made without indicating any specific instance. Apart from the above, it also appears that no right of the petitioner is affected. The present petition, essentially, is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation; but has been filed without complying with the necessary conditions for instituting such a petition. 5.

In view of the above, the present petition and the application are dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 28, 2019 RK