Delhi High Court
Jatinder Kapoor vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 8 November, 2017
$~14(25)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 08th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 6879/2017
JATINDER KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anil Sharma, Mr.Gurpreet Singh,
Mr.Arun Baali and Mr.Jaskaran
Singh, Advts.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Mr.Sri Harsha
Peechara, Standing counsels for
SDMC with Ms.Vidhi Jain, Adv. and
Mr.Neeraj Dabas, Assistant Comm.,
SDMC with Mr.Sheeshpal, Area
Inspector, SDMC.
Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Adv. for DDA.
Mr.Gaurav Varma, Adv. for R-4 and
R-5 with Insp./SHO Ved Prakash and
SI Satyender Gulia, PS Kalkaji.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is taken up for
final hearing and disposal.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to remove the hawkers/street
vendors/squatters from in front of and around the areas of premises of
the petitioner i.e. G-2, Ground Floor, 55, Madhuban, Nehru Place,
New Delhi as the hawkers and street vendors are causing
inconvenience and blocking the ingress and egress of the petitioner,
his staff, customers, tenants and prospective tenants have refused to
consider taking the property on rent for the above reasons. It is also
contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has
declared Nehru Place area as 'no vending', 'no hawking' zone but
they are not following their own stand which has been taken before
this Court in a number of matters. Counsel for the petitioner
complains that on account of inaction on the part of the officials of the
SDMC the petitioner has not only suffered harassment but also
suffered financial loss as the lease with respect to the subject property
was determined by the Central Bank of India (the tenant) on account
of hindrance caused and obstructions on account of the area being
blocked by the hawkers. The petitioner had also complained that on
account of obstruction to free movement of pedestrians, the area in
question cannot be accessed in case of an emergency and the same
would lead to loss of life and property if relief cannot be provided on
account of the area being blocked by hawkers and street vendors.
3. Notice was issued in the matter. A status report was filed, however,
the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that despite the
status report filed by the respondents no.4 and 5 and also by the
SDMC, the factual position remained unchanged. We had thereafter
again adjourned the matter to enable the SDMC and the Delhi Police
to work out a plan so that the ingress and egress and the right of the
petitioner to earn his livelihood is not curtailed.
4. Today, another status report, communications addressed by the SDMC
to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and photographs dated
30.10.2017, 31.10.2017, 01.11.2017, 03.11.2017, 06.11.2017 &
07.11.2017 have been handed over in Court to show that the area
outside the shop of the petitioner has been cleared of all
encroachments. The documents and photographs handed over in Court
shall form part of the Court Record.
5. The SDMC and the local police shall remain bound by the stand taken
in the Court and photographs placed on record shall form part of Court
record and the area shall remain encroachment free.
6. In view of the photographs handed over in court and the observations
so made, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ
petition may be disposed of in the above terms. Accordingly, the writ
petition is disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
NOVEMBER 08, 2017
rb
