*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20th January, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 300/2011
% NAND KISHORE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Advocate
Versus
MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate
AND
+ W.P.(C) 358/2011
% SMT. URMILLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Advocate
Versus
MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate
AND
+ W.P.(C) 366/2011
% PURAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Advocate
Versus
MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha & Mr. Shyel
Trehan, Advocates
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
W.P.(C) Nos.300/2011,358/2011 & 366/2011 Page 1 of 4
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner in each of these three petitions claims to be street vendor and they claim to have been vending for the last 25-40 years from E- 2, Bagh Diwar, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110 052. They further claim that they were sought to be evicted from the said site against allotment of alternative tehbazari sites; they further claim that in accordance with the then Policy of the year 1992, they applied for alternative sites and each of them were allotted alternative sites at different locations and letters of provisional allotment also issued to them but till date the possession of the alternative tehbazari sites has not been given to them. They have filed this petition to restrain the respondents i.e. the MCD, the Police authorities and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi from interfering with their continuing to carrying on business of vending from E-2, Bagh Diwar, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110 052. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners also aver discrimination inasmuch as the other street vendors at the said location have already been allotted permanent tehbazari sites. It is further contended that the petitioners are seeking protection only till possession of the alternative sites is allotted to them.
2. The counsel for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice states that the present writ petitions are misconceived and the remedy if any of the petitioners is before the Zonal Vending Committee. W.P.(C) Nos.300/2011,358/2011 & 366/2011 Page 2 of 4
3. I find merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondent MCD and do not feel the need to issue a formal notice in the petitions or to call for the replies. Even if the petitioners, in accordance with the Policy of the year 1992, were entitled to alternative tehbazari sites and were issued provisional letters of allotment in that regard, since then the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors has come into force and whereunder the Zonal Vending Committee has been empowered to examine the claims of the tehbazari holders for vending sites and which Policy provides a complete mechanism for the adjudication of the claims as made by the petitioners.
4. The petitioners have admittedly not approached the Zonal Vending Committee till now. It is not for this Court to adjudicate the entitlement of the petitioners. The Policy makes three categories of vendors and depending upon the category, the priority for allotment is provided.
5. The petitions are therefore disposed of with the directions to the petitioners to approach the Zonal Vending Committee. The Zonal Vending Committee shall decide the eligibility of the petitioners for allotment of tehbazari sites within three months of the petitioners approaching the said Committee.
6. The counsel for the petitioners seeks protection till then.
6. Since from the documents filed with the paper books, it appears that provisional letters of allotment were issued to the petitioners under the W.P.(C) Nos.300/2011,358/2011 & 366/2011 Page 3 of 4 earlier Policy, the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. Accordingly, subject to the petitioners approaching the Zonal Vending Committee within 15 days of today, the respondents shall not disturb the petitioners if at present in occupation of any vending sites as claimed, till the decision by the Zonal Vending Committee. However, the same shall be subject to the petitioners not raising any construction and complying with the other terms and conditions laid down with respect to the street vendors and not squatting in 'No Vending Zones'.
With the aforesaid directions, the petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
Dasti under signature of the Court Master to the counsel for the parties.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 20th JANUARY, 2011 'gsr' W.P.(C) Nos.300/2011,358/2011 & 366/2011 Page 4 of 4