Delhi High Court
Ajeet Kumar vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr on 30 June, 2015
$~2 to 8, 10 to 13, 15 to 17 & 19 to 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6115/2015 & CM No.11120/2015 (for stay)
BRAHM PAL ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6116/2015 & CM No.11122/2015 (for Direction)
JAMEEL AHMAD ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6117/2015 & CM No.11124/2015 (for stay)
ARPIT GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6118/2015 & CM No.11126/2015 (for stay)
MAHENDER MANDAL ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6119/2015 & CM No.11128/2015 (for stay)
SACHIN ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6120/2015 & CM No.11130/2015 (for stay)
DEVI CHARAN ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
Page 1 of 12
+ W.P.(C) 6123/2015 & CM No.11135/2015 (for direction)
RAJU KHAN ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6130/2015 & CM No.11145/2015 (for stay)
AJAY GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6131/2015 & CM No.11147/2015 (for stay)
RAMESH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6132/2015 & CM No.11149/2015 (for stay)
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6134/2015 & CM No.11153/2015 (for stay)
HEMLATA ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6143/2015 & CM No.11166/2015 (for stay)
NISHA KHAN ..... Petitioner
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Page 2 of 12
+ W.P.(C) 6144/2015 & CM No.11167/2015 (for direction)
BHOLA PRASAD VERMA ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6145/2015 & CM No.11168/2015 (for stay)
VIJAYPAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6148/2015 & CM No.11173/2015 (for stay)
LAXMI NARYAN ..... Petitioner
Versus
NORTH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
& ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6157/2015 & CM No.11184/2015 (for direction)
AJEET KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6158/2015 & CM No.11185/2015 (for direction)
KHURSHID AHMAD ..... Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents
Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Chandan Kumar and Mr. Ranjit
Kumar, Advs.
Mr. Anand Shailani, Adv.
Ms. Minal Sehgal, Adv.
Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Adv.
Page 3 of 12
Counsel for respondents: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for NDMC.
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Adv. for
GNCTD.
Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Ms. Sona
Babbar and Ms. Mahima Kalra, Advs.
for GNCTD.
Ms. Niti Jain, Adv. for GNCTD.
Mr. Satyakam, Adv. for GNCTD.
Mr. Vikas Chopra, Adv. for NDMC
& SDMC.
S.I. Bhojraj Singh, P.S.-Sarojini
Nagar, New Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 30.06.2015
CM No.11121/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6115/2015
CM No.11125/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6117/2015
CM No.11127/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6118/2015
CM No.11129/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6119/2015
CM No.11131/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6120/2015
CM No.11146/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6130/2015
CM No.11148/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6131/2015
CM No.11150/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6132/2015
CM No.11154/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6134/2015
CM No.11169/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6145/2015 (all for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6115/2015 & CM No.11120/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) 6116/2015
& CM No.11122/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) 6117/2015 & CM
No.11124/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) 6118/2015 & CM No.11126/2015 (for
stay), W.P.(C) 6119/2015 & CM No.11128/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C)
6120/2015 & CM No.11130/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) 6123/2015 & CM
No.11135/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) 6130/2015 & CM No.11145/2015 (for
stay), W.P.(C) 6131/2015 & CM No.11147/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C)
6132/2015 & CM No.11149/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) 6134/2015 & CM
No.11153/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) 6143/2015 & CM No.11166/2015 (for
stay), W.P.(C) 6144/2015 & CM No.11167/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C)
6145/2015 & CM No.11168/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) 6148/2015 & CM
No.11173/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) 6157/2015 & CM No.11184/2015 (for
stay) & W.P.(C) 6158/2015 & CM No.11185/2015 (for stay)
1. All these petitions are preferred by persons claiming to be street
vendors within the meaning of Section 2(l) of the Street Vendors (Protection
of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and seeking to
restrain the respective municipalities from dispossessing them from the
respective sites from which they claim to be street vending till their cases or
claims for issuance of a certificate of vending (within the meaning of
Section 4 of the said Act) and to which each of them claims to be entitled,
are considered by the Town Vending Committee to be constituted under the
said Act. In some of the petitions, additionally, the relief of directing the
municipality to issue a local tehbazari site and to register the petitioner in the
Town Vending Committee in terms of the guidelines laid down by the
Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union Vs. Municipal
Corporation Greater Mumbai 2013 (11) SCALE 329 and/or a mandamus to
the municipality to issue a certificate of vending to the petitioner/s is sought.
2. The counsel for the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council
(NDMC) has informed that a large number of such petitions by street
vendors have been coming up before this Court on a daily basis and identical
orders are being passed therein. Attention is drawn to the order dated 30 th
October, 2014 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7337/2014 titled Nagendra
Yadav Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and in other connected petitions
where, a) after taking notice of the aforesaid dicta of the Supreme Court and
of the Street Vendors Act supra; and, b) after expressing an opinion that
Section 3(3) of the said Act clearly states that no street vendor shall be
evicted or relocated till the survey to be carried out by the Committee, has
been completed and certificate of vending has been issued to all street
vendors, a direction was issued for constitution of the Town Vending
Committee within the meaning of Section 2(m) and Section 22 of the said
Act within a period of eight weeks therefrom and the petitioners in those
cases were permitted to file their representations with the Town Vending
Committee and which representations were directed to be decided
expeditiously, preferably within six months therefrom and the petitions were
disposed of.
3. I highlight, that in the aforesaid order, besides expressing an opinion
as aforesaid on Section 3(3) of the Act, no restraint order, as sought in these
petitions and as sought in those petitions also, was issued. I further highlight
that thus, no relief as sought by the street vendors petitioners, i.e. of
restraining the municipality from dispossessing them from the sites from
which they claimed to be street vending was given. Perhaps it was felt that
granting any such relief would denude the municipalities of all powers to
regulate street vending and make the pavements inaccessible to pedestrians
and the street vendors will literally hold the rest of the city to ransom.
4. The counsel for the respondent NDMC states that the said order has
been followed in all the other petitions which subsequently came before this
Court.
5. The counsel for the respondent NDMC further informs that the Town
Vending Committee is to comprise of thirty members and of which twelve
are to be elected from the association of the street vendors and the remaining
are either ex-officio / officials or to be nominated. He further states that as
far as he is aware, though has no written instructions in this regard, all the
other members of the Town Vending Committee are in place and the process
of forming of an association of street vendors and holding their elections for
electing the representatives on the Town Vending Committee is at an
advance stage.
6. This Court, in the order dated 30th October, 2014 supra, had directed
the Town Vending Committee to be constituted within a period of eight
weeks therefrom. The said period has long since expired. The non-
constitution of the Town Vending Committee by the concerned authorities is
obviously to the advantage of the street vendors against whom, as opined in
the order dated 30th October, 2014, no action can be taken under Section
3(3) of the Street Vendors Act. The same is however to the detriment of the
other citizens of the city who face inconvenience on account of the street
vending going unregulated. It is hoped that the concerned authorities will
expedite the process of constitution of the Town Vending Committee, so
that street vending can be regulated in terms of the Act aforesaid.
7. The counsels for the respondents North Delhi Municipal Corporation
(NrDMC) and South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) state that the
position in the said two municipalities is the same and what has been
informed with respect to the NDMC, equally applies to the said two
municipalities also.
8. The counsels for the petitioners state that these petitions be also
disposed of on the same lines as order dated 30th October, 2014 supra.
9. I have enquired from the counsels for the petitioner that if they are
satisfied with the order dated 30th October, 2014 supra, which as aforesaid
does not grant any relief to the petitioners, why these petitions are being
filed. I am of the view that the opinion which has been expressed by this
Court as to the interpretation of Section 3(3) of the Act in the order dated
30th October, 2014 would equally apply to the street vendors who are not
party to the petitions in which the order was made. There thus, in my view,
seems to be no need for other street vendors to be filing the petitions
particularly when they are satisfied with the same order as the order dated
30th October, 2014.
10. The counsel for the petitioners / street vendors state that the street
vendors apprehend that unless a petition is filed, their claims before the
Town Vending Committee would not be considered.
11. There appears to be no basis for such apprehension and the counsels
also are unable to show any ground therefor. This Court, while disposing of
these petitions is not and cannot possibly in writ jurisdiction return any
finding of the respective petitioners therein, in fact street vending at the site
claimed by them or not. In fact, it is the stand of the counsel for the
respondent NDMC that the NDMC denies that any of the said persons are
vending at the sites claimed by them. The said claims of the said street
vendors will have to be established before the Town Vending Committee in
the manner provided under the Act and cannot be established before this
Court.
12. The counsels for the petitioners are therefore requested to advise their
clients accordingly and to make available a copy of this order to the street
vendors, whosoever approaches them for filing the petitions.
13. It is further made clear that in future, such petition if filed would be
dismissed with exemplary costs, unless a case otherwise is made out.
14. In W.P.(C) No.6145/2015, the SDMC having jurisdiction over the
area where the petitioners therein claim to be street vending, has not been
impleaded and instead Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) (which has ceased to exist) have
been impleaded. On the oral request of the counsel for the petitioners
therein and to which the counsel for the SDMC has no objection, SDMC is
substituted in place of MCD and an endorsement to the said effect shall be
made on the memorandum of parties by the Court Master under her
signatures in today's date itself.
15. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6148/2015 states that the
petitioner therein has a tehbazari licence issued under the regime in force
prior to coming into force of the Street Vendors Act supra and in fact the
Appellate Authority constituted in terms of the judgment in Gainda Ram
Vs. MCD (2010) 10 SCC 715 had also restrained the municipality from
dispossessing the petitioner therein till his application for a permanent
tehbazari site is considered and which remains to be adjudicated owing to
coming into force of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
16. The counsel for the respondent SDMC states that it will be verified,
whether the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6148/2015 is street vending at the site
as claimed by him and is complying with the conditions imposed on him,
while granting him a permanent tehbazari site and whether there is an order
of the Appellate Authority as stated by the counsel for the petitioner today
and if it is found so, then no action for dispossession of the said petitioner
shall be taken.
17. The needful in this regard be done within a period of one week.
18. In the aforesaid view of the matter, all these petitions are decided in
terms of the order dated 30th October, 2014 supra and with the observations
supra.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JUNE 30, 2015
Bs..
