The Delhi High Court has cleared decks for the conversion of the heritage Gole Market building into a museum and declined shopkeepers' plea against the New Delhi Municipal Council's move to evict them for the purpose.
A vacation bench of justices Manmohan Singh and R V Easwar accepted NDMC's affidavit which stated that a decision has been taken to covert the building into a museum but not to develop it as commercial property.
The court also asked the shopkeepers to hand over the possession of shops by June 30 in accordance with the undertakings given by them to the court.
The shopkeepers have moved the high court, also challenging the single judge's order refusing to grant any immediate relief, alleging that on February 4, the NDMC staff along with police force came to take forcible possession of their shops without giving any notice or intimation of any sort.
They also contended that NDMC had not taken any decision as to whether to covert the building into a museum or not and till the time NDMC takes a final decision on the issue, they should not be evicted.
The court, in its order, made it clear that it is "open to the appellants to initiate any action which is permissible under law in case it is found that the respondent (NDMC) intends anytime to develop Gole Market as commercial property".
Referring to the undertakings given by the shopkeepers to the court on May 22, the bench asked them to hand over their shops and offices on or before June 30.
"As far as the undertakings given by the appellants (shopkeepers) to vacate the suit property on or before June 30, 2013 are concerned, this court is of the view that the same is binding upon them, as the single judge has accepted their undertakings which were tendered by the appellants themselves unconditionally.
"Thus, no advantage whatsoever can be derived by the appellants not to vacate the suit property in case the respondent is not able to take the decision in respect of development of area as a museum," the bench said.
In their plea, the shopkeepers said that on March 30, 2012, the division bench had observed that in case the building was to be retained as a market, then the shopkeepers of the market including the appellants be given preference, and in case, it was to be converted into a museum, then they were to be offered alternate shops or offices.
