Delhi High Court
Khurshida Parveen vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 19 February, 2018
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1904/2017
KHURSHIDA PARVEEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Alamgir, Advocate.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Reema Khorana and Mr.Kartik
Rathi, Advocates for respondent
no.1/SDMC.
Mr.Sachin Nahar, Advocate for
respondent nos.2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 19.02.2018
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a handicapped woman and she is squatting from Gate
No.1 near Metro Station, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Under fear of
being dispossessed, she has filed the present writ petition seeking a
direction that the respondent be restrained from harassing her and a
writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondent to allow
her to vend at the site in question.
2. Two status reports have been filed. Mrs.Khorana, counsel for
respondent no.1 submits that area in question is extremely
crowded. She submits that a communication dated 20.09.2016 was
received from Assistant Manager (Operations), Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd. (in short 'DMRC'), Line-6 (North), informing the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short 'MCD') that there is
blockage of entry/exit of metro station by hawkers, vendors and
beggars and for this reason it has been observed that commuters are
facing an issue i.e. blockage of entry/exit of metro station. It was
further brought into the notice of the MCD that for the aforesaid
reason they are creating a problem in the smooth movement of
passenger services. Mrs.Khorana further submits that pursuant to
the aforesaid communication the Sub Divisional Magistrate (in
short 'SDM') had issued a notice 18.01.2017 and directed the
MCD to remove the encroachers, vendors/hawkers, rickshaw
pullers and auto rickshaws which are illegally occupying the place
at Nehru Place metro station.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the respondent is
not uniform and the petitioner has been singled out which is
disputed by counsel for respondent/MCD.
4. We have heard the counsels for the parties.
5. We may note that the rules of the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection
of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2017 have
been notified on 10.01.2018 and it is expected that the Town
Vending Committee (in short 'TVC') would be put into place
shortly.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is being singled out
while other street-vendors are being allowed to vend.
7. We have examined the letter dated 20.09.2016 issued by the
Assistant Manager (Operations), DMRC. Reading of the letter
dated 20.09.2016 would show that the petitioner has been removed
at the behest of the DMRC on the ground that exit and entry points
of the Metro Station was being blocked. We have also examined
the order dated 30.12.2016 issued by the SDM. We find no
infirmity in the order passed by the SDM for the reason that the
petitioner and other street vendors who have been removed cannot
be allowed to block the entry and exit gates of the Metro Station.
Keeping in view the fact that the name of the petitioner does not
find mentioned in either of the list prepared by the MCD/Chopra
Committee. The petitioner cannot be termed as a regular street-
vendor.
8. While we find no grounds to entertain this petition, we direct the
MCD to take uniform action and ensure that there is no obstruction
to free movement of pedestrians.
9. Leave is granted to the petitioner to approach the TVC as and when
it is constituted with supporting documents and merely because the
petitioner may not be found vending at the site shall not be a
ground alone to reject his case.
10. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2018
ssc
