Delhi High Court
Urmila Devi vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 11 January, 2013
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th January, 2013
+ LPA No.825/2012
URMILA DEVI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raiz Farooqui, Adv.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA.
Mr. H.S. Sachdeva & Mr. Mithilesh
Kumar, Advs. for R-3 with Station
House Officer, P.S. Kalkaji.
Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. for MCD.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 17.10.2012 of the
learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.6391/2012 preferred by the
appellant. The counsel for the respondents appeared on advance notice
when the appeal came up first and with the consent of the counsels, the
appeal was finally heard and judgment reserved.
2. The appellant, claiming to be a hawker selling her wares from a
pavement in the Nehru Place Commercial Complex, had filed the writ
petition from which this appeal arises pleading that her application for a
vending site under the National Policy for Urban Street Vendors had been
rejected by the Zonal Vending Committee (ZVC) of the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) due to non availability of vending sites and
seeking to restrain the respondents from dispossessing her from the said site
till a permanent or alternative vending site under the Policy aforesaid was
allotted to her.
3. The respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) opposed the
writ petition denying that the appellant was hawking from the pavement in
Nehru Place and it was further contended that Nehru Place had been
declared as a 'No Hawking Zone' and none was permitted to carryout
hawking activities therefrom.
4. The respondent MCD also in its counter affidavit before the learned
Single Judge pleaded that the Nehru Place District Centre was no longer
within its jurisdiction as the same had been transferred to the DDA in the
year 2002. It was also denied that the appellant was a valid tehbazari holder
of the MCD.
5. The learned Single Judge in the light of the aforesaid and noticing the
orders in other similar writ petitions to the effect that no priority could be
claimed over other similarly placed applicants though reserving the right if
any of the appellant to be considered for allotment as per her seniority as and
when the sites are made available, dismissed the writ petition.
6. The counsel for the appellant before us has drawn attention to
tehbazari receipts and photographs to contend that the appellant is in fact
hawking from the Nehru Place area and the contention of the DDA and the
MCD to the contrary is incorrect.
7. We are however of the opinion that the said controversy is irrelevant.
It is not disputed that Nehru Place has been declared as a 'No Hawking
Zone'. None is permitted to hawk / vend from open areas, streets and
pavements thereof. The hawking / vending activities even if any by the
appellant or others from the said area, are illegal. The National Policy for
Urban Street Vendors does not vest any right in the appellant to carry on
hawking / vending activities from 'No Hawking Zones'. The claim of the
appellant has already been rejected by the ZVC. Granting of the relief
claimed by the appellant would not only amounts to perpetuating
contravention of the Municipal / DDA decision declaring Nehru Place as a
'No Hawking Zone' but would also tantamount to granting a hawking /
vending site to the appellant when she at present has not been found to be
eligible thereof by the Committee constituted for the said purpose. It defies
logic as to why the appellant should be granted the said benefit when those
who have been found eligible by the ZVC have yet not been allotted any
vending site owing to paucity thereof. We therefore do not find any merit in
this appeal which is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
th
JANUARY 11 , 2013
'gsr'
