Delhi High Court
Nanni Bai Ahirwar vs New Delhi Municipal Council And ... on 23 January, 2018
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 23rd January, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 673/2018
NANNI BAI AHIRWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. K. Sahoo and Mr. S. B. Sahoo,
Advocate.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Mr. Rajinder
Yadav, Mr. Simar Pal Singh and
Ms.Guneet Khehar, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC for R-2 with
Mr. Manashwy Jha, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
under the Street Vendors Act, 2014 filed by the petitioner. The
petitioner claims to be a squatting near out gate of LIC building
nearby boundary wall of the parking, Janpath, New Delhi since the
year 1988. As per the petitioner, she was granted licence in the
year 1992 for selling uncut fruits on cycle and this licnece is valid
till April, 2020.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
wishes to change her trade and infact she has been selling
readymade garments from her place of squatting. Under the threat
of being removed, she has filed the present petition.
3. Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent without admitting any of the averments made in
the writ petition, submits that the petitioner is not a regular street
vendor and her licence would itself shows that she was allowed to
sell uncut fruits on a cycle, thus, she cannot have a fixed place of
squatting.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner would approach the TVC and in case she is not found
vending at the site at the time of survey that should not be a ground
to reject her case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the petitioner
makes an application with supporting documents before the TVC,
the same would be considered in accordance with law and merely
because the petitioner is not found squatting, that itself alone would
not be a ground to reject the case of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the following
agreed directions:-
(i) The petitioner would approach the TVC as and when
it is constituted 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 when the survey is conducted, that by itself
would not be a ground alone to reject his case.
7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matter and this order is being passed without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.
8. The writ petition is disposed of.
9. Copy of the order be given dasti, as prayed.
G. S. SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JANUARY 23, 2018
gr
