Smt. Urmilla vs Mcd & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 354 Del

              *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.

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

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'