Jagdish Chand Jain vs Mcd
2011 Latest Caselaw 5932 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                 Date of decision: 5th December, 2011
+                         LPA 1013/2011
%        JAGDISH CHAND JAIN                                 ..... Appellant
                     Through:          Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal & Mr. Vivek
                                       Nasa, Advocates.
                                   Versus
         MCD                                             ..... Respondent
                            Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                    JUDGMENT

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The appellant having failed in the writ petition preferred impugning the order dated 25 th February, 2011 of the Appellate Authority constituted under National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009, has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant is a hawker/street vendor. He was found eligible by the Zonal Vending Committee constituted under the Policy aforesaid for a hawking/vending site and was allotted such site at Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. He applied for change of the said site to that outside Vishal Cinema at Delhi and having failed to convince the Zonal Vending Committee (ZVC), approached the Appellate Authority aforesaid.

3. It was the plea of the appellant that he had been hawking/vending from outside Vishal Cinema since the year 1982 and was thus entitled to continue at the said site. It was the case of the respondent MCD that the appellant had initially been allotted a site at Khayala village but since he did not come forward to take that site, he was subsequently allotted the site at Ragbhubir Nagar to which also he did not shift and unathorizedly continued outside Vishal Cinema.

4. The Appellate Authority held that the trade i.e. Dhaba for sale of Chhole Bhature which the appellant was carrying, was in any case not permitted outside Vishal Cinema and thus rejected the request of the appellant.

5. In the judicial review sought by the appellant by filing W.P.(C) No.3931/2011, the learned Single Judge has found no error in the decision of the Appellate Authority and has rather observed that it was not for this Court to start interfering in the allocation of hawking/vending sites done by the authorities constituted for the said purpose. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed in limine.

6. The counsel for the appellant has before us urged that the appellant has a fundamental right to carry on hawking/vending activities outside Vishal Cinema. We are unable to find any such right in favour of the appellant. The Supreme Court having made elaborate arrangements and having laid down the Policy for considering the claims of the

hawkers/street vendors who are much more in number than the hawking/vending sites available and having constituted the Zonal Vending Committees and the Appellate Authority in this regard, this Court cannot exercise appellate powers over the decision of the Zonal Vending Committees constituted for the purpose of consideration of claims and allocation of sites. The Appellate Authority in the present case has given the cogent reasons for dismissing the claim of the petitioner for change of vending site and the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to interfere.

6. There is thus no merit in the appeal; the same is dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

DECEMBER 5, 2011 pp..