Delhi High Court
Gyan Prakash Gupta & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 27 April, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2432/2011 & C.M. No.2432/2011
+ W.P.(C) 3095/2011 & C.M. No.3095/2011
Decided on: 27.04.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA & ORS ..... Petitioners
WEEKLY BAZAR ASSOCIATION MADHUVIHAR ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Sumit K. Singh, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Sonia Arora with
Mr. Ashutosh Shahi, Advs.
for R-1,3 & 4 in W.P.(C) 3095/2011.
Mr. Mukul Sharma, Adv. for R-2/MCD in
W.P.(C) 2432/2011.
Ms. Biji Rajesh, proxy counsel for
Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for R-2/MCD
in W.P.(C) 3095/2011.
Mohd. Noorullah, proxy counsel for
Mr. Anjum Javed, Adv. for R-4 in
W.P.(C) 2432/2011.
SI Satbir Singh, PS - Madhu Vihar.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. Pursuant to the order dated 13.9.2011 passed in
WP(C)No.3095/2011, the file of the proceedings held by the respondent
No.3/Public Grievance Commission (PGC) in respect of a complaint dated
30.9.2008 filed by respondent No.5, was summoned for perusal so as to
verify as to whether the petitioners herein were duly represented before
respondent No.3/PGC on the dates anterior to passing of the impugned
order dated 21.3.2011, whereunder the complaint of respondent No.5
was disposed of with the observation that a compromise formula had
been evolved between the parties and as per the said formula, it was
agreed that in the area marked in red in the site plan placed before
respondent No.3/PGC, there would be no hawking activity and the same
would be vacated by the vendors/hawkers and further, the respondent
No.2/MCD and respondent No.4/Delhi Police would ensure that the area in
question remains free of any hawking activity.
2. The relevant records have been summoned by the Registry
from the office of respondent No.3/PGC. A perusal thereof establishes the
fact that the petitioners herein were not represented before the
respondent No.3/PGC on the date anterior to the passing of the order
dated 21.3.2011.
3. As regards the short affidavit filed by the respondent
No.4/Delhi Police on 1.9.2011 in WP(C)No.3095/2011, it is stated in para
5 thereof that after a lengthy discussion and much persuasion, a
compromise formula had been evolved between respondent No.2/MCD
and respondent No.5/complainant, whereunder it was agreed that no
hawking activity would be permitted at certain earmarked places and that
the said area would remain a 'no hawking area'. A perusal of the
aforesaid affidavit also bears out the submission made by the counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners or their representatives were not
present when the aforesaid formula was evolved to settle the grievance of
respondent No.5/complainant.
4. On a query posed to the counsel for respondent No.2/MCD as
to whether any minutes of the meeting held between the parties, were
reduced into writing and got signed by all the parties present, the answer
is in the negative.
5. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners is
justified in stating that the petitioners were never represented before the
respondent No.3/PGC on the dates anterior to passing of the impugned
order dated 21.3.2011 and they cannot be bound down to any
compromise formula mentioned in the impugned order dated 21.3.2011.
In these circumstances, while setting aside and quashing the order dated
21.3.2011, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petitions
with directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, MCD,
to convene a meeting to be attended by the petitioners, respondent No.5
and respondent No.4/Delhi Police, so as to try and resolve the grievance
of respondent No.5/complainant pertaining to law and order problems
arising from holding of a Weekly Monday Bazar on a stretch of road
between Gurudwara Road to I.P. Extension.
6. The only difficulty that the petitioner/Association in
WP(C)No.3095/2011 faces is that it is an informal body and has not got
registered under the Societies Act, for being legally recognized. Counsel
for the petitioners confirms the aforesaid fact and states that to overcome
the aforesaid difficulty, all the aggrieved vendors, whether they are
parties in the present proceedings or not, shall authorize one/two persons
to act as their representative(s) by executing powers of attorney in their
favour, whereafter, if some reasonable time is given, the said
representatives may be permitted to appear on behalf of the petitioners
before the Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, MCD, with their
grievance. Counsel for the petitioners shall also be entitled to attend the
aforesaid meeting.
7. The date and venue of the meeting shall be notified to the
petitioners, through counsel, and to respondent No.5/complainant
directly. The meeting shall be held in the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, MCD, within a period of two weeks
from today and the issues raised by both the sides shall be examined
after a fresh survey of the area is conducted jointly with the local police.
The decision that shall be taken by the respondent No.2/MCD shall then
be communicated in writing to the petitioners, through their counsel, as
also to the respondent No.5/complainant and respondent No.4/Delhi
Police.
8. In case any of the parties is aggrieved by the order that may
be passed by respondent No.2/MCD, they shall be entitled to seek their
remedies as per law.
9. The records summoned from the office of respondent
No.3/PGC be released forthwith.
10. The petitions are disposed of, along with the pending
applications.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for
respondent No.2/MCD, under the signatures of the Court Master.
HIMA KOHLI, J
APRIL 27, 2012
sk
