Delhi High Court
Devi Charan vs Ndmc And Anr. on 22 February, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7613/2011
Decided on: 22.02.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
DEVI CHARAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate
versus
NDMC AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for R-1/NDMC.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for directions to respondent No.1/NDMC to relocate his present vending site
to another vending site, and for further directions to respondent No.1/NDMC
and respondent No.2/Delhi Police, to not disturb the petitioner at his present
vending site.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated
25.05.2011 passed in W.P.(C) 3216/2011 filed by the petitioner and other
vendors in a batch of matters taken up on the same date, the Court had
directed the respondent/NDMC not to disturb the petitioner herein and other
petitioners from their present hawking sites, till the vending committee
completed the exercise of determining the status of their eligibility. It was
further directed that if the petitioners were found to be eligible for allotment
of a vending site under the Scheme, then the aforesaid interim protection
would continue to operate in their favour, till such time that the
respondent/NDMC implemented the Scheme of allotment of the vending
sites.
3. The order dated 25.05.2011 is enclosed with the writ petition
and marked as Annexure P-1. It is submitted by the counsel for the
petitioner that respondent No.1/NDMC had found the petitioner eligible for
allotment of a vending site under the Scheme and his name was placed at
Sr. No.1912 of the eligibility list. He states that the petitioner has been
carrying on the vending business of selling readymade garments and other
related items alongside the school wall, near shop No.60, Babu Market, G-
Avenue Road, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. However, despite the said interim
protection granted to the petitioner, the respondents have been harassing
him and are trying to disturb him from the presently occupied site.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid fact
was brought to the notice of the Appellate authority in an appeal filed by the
petitioner registered as Appeal No.271/2011. Pertinently, the aforesaid
appeal was disposed of by the Appellate authority vide order dated
28.07.2011, wherein the presence of the SHO, Police Station: Sarojini Nagar
had been recorded. The said officer had stated that the police had not asked
the petitioner to shift from the site, which he was occupying and instead, it
was submitted that perhaps the officials of NDMC may be doing so. While
granting leave to the petitioner to pursue the matter against the NDMC with
the Zonal Vending Committee, the aforesaid appeal was disposed of.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, the petitioner had filed an
application before the Zonal Vending Committee on 05.08.2011 but, as the
said committee did not respond thereto, the present petition had to be filed
by the petitioner.
5. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated
20.10.2011. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1/NDMC.
The same is not on record. Counsel for respondent No.1/NDMC hands over
a photocopy of the counter affidavit filed by him in the Registry only
yesterday. It is stated in the counter affidavit that neither the area
Inspector nor any other employee of respondent No.1/NDMC has been
harassing the petitioner or demanding any bribe from him. NDMC confirms
that the petitioner is squatting at the site as mentioned by him in the writ
petition and learned counsel states that under the garb of the present
petition, he is only trying to pressurize respondent No.1/NDMC to change his
squatting site to a more favourable site, which is not permissible.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the stand taken
by respondent No.1/NDMC in its counter affidavit, he does not wish to press
the present petition any further.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with directions to
respondent No.1/NDMC not to disturb the petitioner from the site from
where he is presently vending, in terms of the order dated 25.5.2011 passed
in WP(C) No.3216/2011.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 22, 2012 JUDGE
rkb/mk
