D. P. Wadhwa, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of a Guest House at 13/33, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi has filed this petition praying, inter alia, that a writ, order or direction be issued to the first respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi thereinafter to be referred as mcd ) quashing order dated 30th April, 1992 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of trade licence under the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act (for short the Act) 2 CWP 2213/92 and at the same time directing issue of such a trade licence under Sections 417/421 of the Act and (2) a writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner against respondents 4 and 5 being respectively Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) directing them to renew the licence issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Regulations for Keeping Places of Public Entertainment in Delhi, 1980 (for short the Regulations) for the years 1992-93 without insisting upon the aforesaid trade licence by the MCD. These Regulations have been framed under the Delhi Police Act, 1978. Yet another prayer made is that the authority be restrained from challaning or prosecuting the petitioner or forcing him to close down his Guest House because of non-renewal of the licence for running the Guest House. ( 2 ) THERE are six respondents. The first three respondents are respectively Municipal Corporation of Delhi and their officers, 4th and 5th respondents are Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police and the 6th respondent is Delhi Administration through the Lt. Governor. ( 3 ) IT is not necessary for us to go into the past history of the running of the Guest House by the petitioner except that a provisional licence under the Regulations was granted on 12. 8. 91 which was valid upto 31. 3. 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to submit the necessary trade licence from the MCD and licence was not renewed under the relevant Regulations. As a matter of fact, by order dated 30th April, 1992 the petitioner was informed by respondents 1,2 and 3 that the case for grant of trade licence for running a Guest House has been rejected by the authorities. Of course, the reason given was that the construction of the building in which the Guest House was being run was unauthorised. Of course, the reason given was that the construction of the building in which the Guest House was being run was unauthorised. Since the petitioner was not having any trade licence under the Act which was a mandatory condition for grant P53 ing licence to run a Guest House under the Regulations he was told by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) that his Guest House was to close down. There was, thus, no renewal of the licence for the period 1992-93. The petitioner, we may note, had applied for renewal of licence for the year 1992-93, i. e. upto 31st March, 1993 on 24th February, 1992. His request therefore, stood declined. ( 4 ) IN answer to show cause notice of this writ petition it has been stated by respondent DCP (Licensing) that the petitioner was running the Guest House unauthorisedly without a trade licence and had violated the provisions of Sec. 417 of the Act as well as Condition No. 7 of the licence under which it is provided that all buildings and other Regulations imposed by the Municipal Bye-laws or by any other Rules for the time being in force had to be strictly complied as provided under Sec. 28 (4) of the Delhi Police Act. This respondent has stated that the petitioner could not be allowed to carry on the Guest House even when his request for grant of trade licence was specifically rejected by the municipal authorities. This respondent further stated that it was certainly a serious matter and, thus, the petitioner could not be allowed to run the Guest House illegally and that in the facts and circumstances of the case the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be not granted in his favour. ( 5 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing today we asked the counsel for the petitioner if the petitioner was still running the Guest House in spite of there being no trade licence under the Act and there being no licence for the year 1992-93 under the provisions of Regulations he said that the petitioner was running the Guest House irrespective of that. Admittedly in the absence of licences under the Act and the Regulations the petitioner is running the Guest House in coniravention of the provisions of Sections 417/421 of the Act and Sec. 28 (4) of the Delhi Police Act. Admittedly in the absence of licences under the Act and the Regulations the petitioner is running the Guest House in coniravention of the provisions of Sections 417/421 of the Act and Sec. 28 (4) of the Delhi Police Act. We cannot certainly comprehend a situation where a petitioner knowing fully well that it was illegal to run a Guest House in the absence of a trade licence under the Act and a licence under the Regulations and yet approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant him relief for the year 1992-93 which is ending on 31st March, 1993 next. The petitioner, it appears, on the strength of pendency of the writ petition is running the Guest House. We do not think that the petitioner is the person who needs our assistance and we certainly would not come to the aid of such persons in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) THE conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to any relief. ( 7 ) THIS petition is, therefore, dismissed.