S. MURALIDHAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions seek a direction to quash the letter dated 5. 1. 2004 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('mcd') rejecting the application of the petitioners for issuance of fresh/ad-hoc registration for running a tea shop from the premises No. 4/3, Mandirwali Gali, Yusuf Sarai, New delh. ( 2 ) EARLIER the writ petitioners had approached this Court by way of Writ petition (C) No. 1480 of 2003 against the letter dated 5. 2. 2003 rejecting the application for grant of licence for continuing to run a tea shop. That petition was allowed by an order dated 14. 11. 2003 by this Court with a direction to the MCD to once again examine the case of the petitioner. It was directed that the Deputy Health Officer (South Zone) will personally visit the site and inform the petitioner about the requirements that had to be complied with. ( 3 ) IT appears that pursuant to the aforementioned order of this Court, the deputy Health Officer visited the premises in question on 27. 11. 2003 and communicated the following observations to the petitioner: ' (1) Height of the shop ' 7-1/2 feet which is less than required as per technical instructions and bye-laws for trade licences. (2) The shop requires repair such as cracks in the wall, roof also needs repair. (3) Shop is being used for residential purpose which is not allowed ' iron trunks, wooden almirah, rajai, gaddas and charpai are to be removed, no partition between the shop and residential portion. (4) There is no proper drainage system, no proper white washing of the shop, no proper disposal of trade waste, no proper ventilation and general cleanliness is also very poor. (5) Other requirement as per Adhoc-Registration Policy:- (a) You are required to submit proof of establishment prior to 31. 3. 2000. (b) NOC from landlord. ' ( 4 ) AN improvement notice dated 4. 12. 2003 was issued to the petitioner to rectify the above deficiencies. The petitioner No. 1 submitted his reply dated 11. 12. 2003 stating that he had removed all the objections. The site was once again visited on 23. 12. 2003 and the following defects were found: ' (a) The shop is running under insanitary conditions and no white wash has been done, no proper disposal of trade waste as well as no proper ventilation. 12. 2003 stating that he had removed all the objections. The site was once again visited on 23. 12. 2003 and the following defects were found: ' (a) The shop is running under insanitary conditions and no white wash has been done, no proper disposal of trade waste as well as no proper ventilation. (b) There are number of cracks in the wall and in the roof of property in question, no white wash, as well as repair has been carried out by the applicant. (c) There is one big iron trunk, two old suitcases, one wooden almirah which are being used for keeping household goods therein and shop is still being used for residential purpose. (d) The height of the shop is 7-1/2 as claimed earlier and does not meet the technical purpose. (e) Sh. Chander Sheker Jain in his reply to improvement notice dated 4. 12. 2003 claimed that his father was having a licence for tea shop and he requested that a licence for running tea shop may be granted to him. In this regard after consulting the record, it revealed that a licence for running of tea shop was issued by the MCD during the year 1979 to Sh. Roshan Lal Jain father of the applicant. But his father expired and the licence was not renewed since 1996. has applied under Adhoc-Registration Scheme for which he has not submitted the proof of establishment prior to 31. 3. 2000 in his own name. ' ( 5 ) IN view of the above deficiencies, the respondent by its impugned order dated 5. 1. 2004 rejected the petitioner's application for grant of adhoc registration. ( 6 ) MR. Mike Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the only substantiative reason for rejection of the application for grant of adhoc registration is that the height of the shop is 7-1/2 ft. He points out that since the roof of the shop is a RCC slab, it would not be possible to increase the height and that in any event there are many such shops which are operating in the vicinity of the tea shop with a height of less than 9 ft. In ground 'k' of the petition, the petitioner has listed out the name of the said shops. ( 7 ) IN these proceedings, this Court by an Order dated 29. 11. In ground 'k' of the petition, the petitioner has listed out the name of the said shops. ( 7 ) IN these proceedings, this Court by an Order dated 29. 11. 2004 required the MCD to explain why action has been taken against only the petitioner and not against other shops which have been running in hygiene condition. In its counter affidavit the MCD has stated that it is taking action against these shops pointed out by the petitioner where the height is less than 9 ft. Further in para 4 of the counter affidavit, the MCD has pointed out as under: 'that in compliance with the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 29. 11. 2004, it is humbly submitted that as per record, an adhoc license bearing No. 4936 was issued to Shri Roshan Lal Jain father of the petitioner no. 1 and 3 and husband of petitioner no. 2 during the year 1979 under the relevant rules/policy existing at that time. This license was purely temporary/adhoc and the same was not confirmed any inheritance rights upon the present petitioners. It is categorically stated that after the death of Shri Roshan Lal Jain on 24. 4. 1987, the license comes to an end automatically. But petitioners concealed this fact from the MCD and managed to get renew the said adhoc license from the year 1987 upto 1996. However, as soon as during the year 1996, it was revealed to MCD that Shri Roshan Lal Jain has already been expired during the year in 1987, thereafter, MCD did not renew the said license till date and petitioners has been running their said trade unauthorizedly and without having any Municipal license till date on one pretext to another. It is further deposed that the adhoc licence are issued in the residential area on purely adhoc basis and the same are not the commercial license. ' ( 8 ) THE rejoinder of the petitioners to para 4 reads as under: 'in rejoinder to para 4, it is submitted that license of the petitioner was not renewed for malicious reasons. It is submitted that the license granted to Mr. Roshan Lal Jain was extended from time to time. After the death of Mr. Roshan lal Jain, petitioner no. 2 apprised the MCD of death of her husband. It is submitted that the license granted to Mr. Roshan Lal Jain was extended from time to time. After the death of Mr. Roshan lal Jain, petitioner no. 2 apprised the MCD of death of her husband. She visited the office of MCD for renewal of license and the same was renewed time and again. It is denied that as soon as the MCD came to know about the death of Mr. Roshan Lal Jain it did not renew the license. In this behalf it is submitted that the MCD did not renew the license at the instance of the petitioner's landlord Mr. G. L. Gupta. It is denied that the petitioner is running any trade unauthorizedly. ' ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners insisted that the licence for running the tea shop had been kept renewed even after 1996 till the year of 2002. In response to a query whether there was any document in support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners sought some more time. Considering the fact that no such plea has been taken either in the petition or even in the rejoinder affidavit referred to hereinabove, and the fact that the petition has been pending since 2004, this Court was not inclined to accede to this request. ( 10 ) THE documents on records indicate that after the death of the father of the petitioner No. 1 in 1987, the licence was kept renewed till 1996, without the MCD being aware of that fact. After this fact became known to it in 1996, the MCD stopped renewing the licence. The reasons pointed out by the MCD in the impugned order dated 5. 1. 2004 cannot be said to be arbitrary or reasonable. The instances pointed out by the petitioners of other shops being permitted to run with a height lesser than 9 ft are negative examples of shops not conforming to the licence conditions impermissible for which corrective action is required to be taken by the MCD. That certainly cannot form the basis of issuing a direction to the MCD to either renew the licence or grant adhoc registration in favour of the petitioners. That apart the fact remains that the petitioners continued operating the tea shop even after 1996 without a valid licence. ( 11 ) THE Court finds no merit in the petition and they are dismissed as such. That apart the fact remains that the petitioners continued operating the tea shop even after 1996 without a valid licence. ( 11 ) THE Court finds no merit in the petition and they are dismissed as such. The interim order passed on 29. 11. 2004 stands vacated. The pending application also stands dismissed.