Delhi High Court
Shyam Murari vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 23 September, 2016
$~25
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 527/2016
Date of decision: 23rd September, 2016
SHYAM MURARI ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Ramesh K. Mishra, Advocate.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS
..... Respondent
Through Ms. Reema Khorana, Advocate for
SDMC.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC, GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
The appellant Shyam Murari impugns order dated 9 th August,
2016 whereby his W.P.(C) No.942/2016 has been dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
2. The appellant claims that he was holder of permanent tehbazari
rights granted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi at a site near Prem
Nagar Nala. In October, 2009, the appellant was evicted from the said
site as the said site was required for road widening project for the
ensuing Common Wealth Games. The appellant was allocated a site
identified at Madanpur Khadar. The appellant was aggrieved and did
not prefer the said site and had along with 50 others filed W.P. (C)
No.4681/2011, titled Prem Singh and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation
of Delhi & Ors. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the
appellant lost interest and the counsel appearing for the petitioners in
W.P. (C) No.4681/2011, titled Prem Singh and Ors. Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi & Ors, had made a statement that he was not
getting any instructions from the present appellant and some others and
accordingly, their names were deleted as one the co-petitioners.
Amended memo of parties was filed.
3. W.P. (C) No.4681/2011, titled Prem Singh and Ors. Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. was dismissed by the single
Judge vide order dated 15th January, 2015.
4. Prem Singh, the first petitioner in the said writ petition
individually filed LPA No.141/2015, which was heard and allowed vide
decision dated 13th March, 2015 directing as an interim measure that
Prem Singh would be given temporary tehbazari rights in an area which
has the features of a natural marked. This allocation of temporary
tehbazari rights would not confer any right of permanent tehbazari at
the said place and that when the Town Vending Committee is
constituted, Prem Singh would have to file a claim before the
Committee concerned.
5. After the aforesaid order was passed by the Division Bench,
some LPAs were filed and identical orders were passed.
6. However, the same Division Bench vide order dated 30th
September, 2015 dismissed LPA No.651/2015 titled Mazhar Ali & Ors.
Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors, filed by some of the
petitioners in W.P. (C) No.4681/2011 by refusing to condone the delay
of 204 days. It was observed that sufficient cause was not shown for
the delay to be condoned.
7. The present case is clearly covered by the decision of the
Division Bench in Mazhar Ali (supra) and not by the earlier order of the
Division Bench in the case of Prem Singh (supra). In the present case,
the appellant was deleted as a co-petitioner vide order dated 04th April,
2014. The appellant did not take any step whatsoever for nearly a
period of 18 months. Thereafter, he along with some others has filed
W.P. (C) No.10234/2015 on 11th October, 2015. This writ petition was
dismissed on the ground that the petitioners therein should set up their
individual claims. Pursuant to the liberty granted, the appellant had
then filed W.P. (C) No.942/2016 on 22nd January, 2016. Thus, the
appellant has not been vending as a street vendor since 2009.
8. Looking at the long delay, we do not think that the appellant is
entitled to any relief. The single Judge was justified in dismissing the
writ petition. The appeal is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2016
NA
