Delhi High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 17 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10196/2017 & CM. No. 41625/2017
DINESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Adv. and
Mr. S.B. Sahoo, Adv.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Praney, Adv. for NDMC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. The abovementioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb him from
squatting in front of Shop/building No. 38-E, Kamala Nagar Ps Roop Nagar.
2. The petitioner claim to be a squatter and squatting in front of
Shop/building No. 38-E, Kamala Nagar Ps Roop Nagar. Mr. Sahoo, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, the petition may be
disposed of, with leave to the petitioner to approach the Town Vending
Committee ("TVC") as and when it is functional, with all supporting
documents and the TVC should be directed to consider the case of the
petitioner. Additionally, in case he is not found vending at his site, that
should not be a ground to reject his case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, without admitting any of the
averments made in the writ petition, submit that in case the petitioner
approaches the TVC as and when it becomes functional, he would have no
objection if the TVC considers his case in accordance with law and based on
supporting documents. It is also contended that merely because the petitioner
is not found vending at the spot, the same would not be a ground alone to
reject his case.
4. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, we dispose of the writ
petition with the following agreed directions:-
(i) The petitioner would approach the TVC, as and when it is
constituted and becomes functional, with all the supporting
documents;
(ii) The TVC will consider the case of the petitioner in
accordance with law and expeditiously, after taking into
consideration all the material placed on record;
(iii) Merely because the petitioner is not found vending at the
site in question when the survey is conducted, that by itself
would not be a ground alone to reject his case.
5. This order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the matter.
6. The writ petition and CM 41625/2017 are disposed of accordingly.
Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
NOVEMBER 17, 2017/aky
