Delhi High Court
Sitar Singh & Ors. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 19 April, 2017
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: 19th April, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 1888/2017
SITAR SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Sumit Kumar Singh and Ms. Renu
Singh, Advocates
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, ASC with
Mr. Mananjay Mishra and Ms. Vidhi
Jain, Advocates.
Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for
Sarojini Nagar Market Association.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by 31 petitioners seeking a
direction to the New Delhi Municipal Corporation(NDMC) to hand
over the respective vending sites allotted to them in terms of a draw
held on 10.05.2012.
2. Mr. Sumit, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been squatting in the Saro jini Nagar Market since a
long period of time. The petitioners had approached this Court in the
year 2011 and in some cases protection was granted to them by the
High Court. The details of the writ petitions and orders so passed
have been detailed in paragraph 2 of this writ petition. Counsel
submits that the NDMC had prepared a list of 628 eligible street
vendors for allotment of 386 available squatting sites in the year 2012.
According to the petition, the names of the petitioners were found
mentioned in the list of 628 persons. The name of the each petitioner
and serial number has been extracted in para 6 of the writ petition.
3. It is also the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the determination
of eligibility, the NDMC announced the 386 sites through a draw of
lot which was scheduled on 10.05.2012. The NDMC issued letters to
the petitioners and similarly situated eligible squatters to participate in
the draw. It is also the case of the these petitioners that in the draw
conducted by the NDMC on 10.05.2012, all the said petitioners
succeeded and were issued allotment letters. Post-the allotment
letters, the petitioners were asked to deposit the registration charges of
Rs.1000/- each, which they claim to have been deposited. It is
submitted by the petitioners that consequent upon the allotment letters
issued, a right has accrued in their favour and seek a direction for
finalization of the allotment.
4. Mr. Harsha Peechara, learned counsel for the NDMC, who enters
appearance on an advance copy, submits that the entire process of
allotment was stayed by the Supreme Court of India by an order dated
31.01.2013 passed in IAs. No.411-412 in Writ Petition(Civil)
No.1699/1987 in the case of Gainda Ram and others v. M.C.D. and
others. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
"Learned Additional Solicitor General made a request for
grant of four weeks' time within which he would consult the
concerned public and other authorities of Government of NCT
of Delhi as also the Central Government for preparing a new
plan keeping in view the national policy and the legislation
enacted by the legislature of NCT of Delhi.
For further arguments and consideration of the issues
raised by the parties, these matters shall be listed on
05.03.2013.
Till the next date, complete status quo shall be maintained
in respect of all those who are engaged in hawking and street
vending as on today. Learned Additional Solicitor General
pointed out that the person to whom the sites were allotted on
the basis of the lottery draw in 2012 in Connaught Place,
Sarojini Nagar and other areas of NDMC, allotments letters
are being issued pursuant to an order passed by the learned
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.
Since this Court is examining various issues, we deem it
proper to direct the NDMC not to act upon the direction given
by the Delhi High Court till the next date of hearing.
We also request the Delhi High Court not to entertain any
petition by or against the hawkers and street vendors till the
matter is heard and decided by this Court.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the
Registrar General of the Delhi High Court who shall place the
same before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The direction of status quo passed today shall operate in
the entire area of NCT of Delhi."
5. The attention of this Court is also drawn to the order passed in
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and Another v. Municipal
Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Others, reported at (2014) 1 SCC
490. While, the counsel for the petitioners submits that a reading of
this judgment would show that till the Street Vendors (Protection of
Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2012 becomes law,
it would be upon for the High Court to step-in in the matter. It was
also directed that the policy of 2009 would continue to remain
applicable. Learned counsel for the NDMC submits that a complete
reading of the order would show that the objective was to bring in an
Act as early as possible so that the rights of the street vendors are
regulated. He further submits that after the passing of the final
judgment, the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and
Regulation of Street Vend ing) Bill, 2012 came into force and all
actions initiated prior thereto would become a nullity and all future
allotments are to be made in terms of the Act. After the Act has come
into force, the NDMC does not have the power to make allotments and
thus, the draw held would remain a still-born child.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute
that the NDMC prepared a list of 628 eligible persons in the year
2012. It is also not in dispute that since 386 sites were available, the
NDMC decided to conduct a draw of lots to allot 386 sites out of 628
eligible street vendors. It is also not in dispute that the names of the
petitioners figured in the 628 eligible persons and they were declared
successful in the draw of lots held on 10.05.2012. Petitioners were
also given allotment letters and were directed to deposit the
registration fee. However, before the rights of the petitioners could be
finalised, all further proceedings were stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India as is evident upon the reading of the order dated
31.01.2013 which has been extracted in para 3 aforegoing. It is also
not in dispute that thereafter, in the case of Maharashtra Ekta
Hawkers Union and Another(supra), while disposing of the writ
petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had expressed hope that
the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Bill, 2012 would become a law and the livelihood of
millions of street vendors would be saved as they will get protection
from consistent harassment and victimization which has so far been
the order of the day.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed to para 20 of this
judgment to show that till the passing of the Act, it would be for the
Court to step in and direct that the policy of 2009 would be
implemented. We are of the view that as of today the directions
contained in paragraph 20 of the judgment would be of no help to the
petitioners. There is no explanation on behalf of the petitioners as to
why after the passing of this order in the year 2013, the petitioners did
not approach the NDMC or this Court till the year 2017. This aspect
gains significance for the reason that after the passing of the order, the
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Bill, 2012 came into force in March, 2014, as per which all
the street vendors are to be governed by the Act and not as per the
earlier policy. Any right which may have accrued in favour of the
petitioners at that stage cannot be enforced in view of the subsequent
sequence of events and as of now, there is no power vested with the
respondents to make any allotment as the allotment is finally to be
made by the Town Vending Committee (TVC).
8. Resultantly, we find no merit in this writ petition; the same is
accordingly dismissed.
9. No costs.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
APRIL 19, 2017
// pst
