Delhi High Court
Delhi Pradesh Rehri Patri Khomcha ... vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 3 July, 2018
$~57 & 58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 3rd July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 6672/2018
DELHI PRADESH REHRI PATRI KHOMCHA HAWKERS UNION
..... Petitioner
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6673/2018
JANODAYA EKTA SAMITI (REGD) ..... Petitioner
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
..... Respondents
Present: Mr.Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms.Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for South Delhi Municipal
Corporation with Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Addl.D.C. (Central
Licensing & Enforcement Cell), SDMC.
Ms.Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for North Delhi Municipal
Corporation with Mr.M.A.Rehman, Addl.D.C., North DMC.
Mr.G.D.Mishra, Standing counsel for East Delhi Municipal
Corporation and Mr.Tushar Sannu, Advocate with Mr.Victor
James, Addl.D.C., East DMC.
Mr.Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Standing Counsel for New Delhi
Municipal Council with Mr.Vaibhav Agnihotri, Mr.Adhiraj
Choudhary and Mr.Abhimanyu Gupta, Advocates
Mr.Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Addl. Standing counsel for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
W.P. (C) Nos. 6672/2018 &6673/2018 Page 1 of 8
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Two organizations, namely, Delhi Pradesh Rehri Patri Khomcha
Hawkers Union and Janodaya Ekta Samiti (Regd.) & another have
filed W.P.(C) Nos.6672/2018 & 6673/2018 respectively. Mr.Ramesh
Kumar Mishra, counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayers
made in both the writ petitions are identical. Accordingly, for the sake
of convenience, the facts in W.P.(C) 6672/2018 are being noticed and
wherever the word „petitioners‟ is being used, it would relate to
W.P.(C) 6672/2018 wherein the following prayers have been made:
"(a) Issue appropriate writ/order or direction directing the
South Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal
Corporation to display the zone wise voter list prepared by the
Corporations as on 19.06.2018 on the basis of documents
submitted by the street vendors who have applied under the
Scheme of 2007.
(b) Issue appropriate writ/order or direction directing the
South Delhi Municipal Corporation, North Delhi Municipal
Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation to display
the zone wise list of all those street vendors who have applied
in 2007 and who are eligible for voting under Rule 13 of Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Act, 2017.
(c) Direct the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, North
Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal
Corporation to give public notice announcing 15 more days
time for submission of documents to such street vendors who
could not submit their documents due to lack of public notice
and at the same time allow such street vendors who have
submitted their documents to raise objections, if any, against
the list already prepared.
(d) Direct the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, North
Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal
Corporation to verify the documents of such street vendors
who have lost their receipts issued in 2007 on the basis of list
available with the MCD.
(e) Direct the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, North
Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal
Corporation to take the documents of such street vendors who
are dependent of those who applied in 2007 and work at the
place of the applicant."
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire procedure adopted
by the Corporations for conducting elections fixed on 15.07.2018 for
the formation of the Town Vending Committees is flawed as the
Corporations have failed to upload and display the complete voters list
on the official websites and notice boards of the Corporations.
Counsel further submits that the Corporations are proposing to carry
out elections without following Rule 13 of Street Vendors (Protection
of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2017. Counsel
for the petitioners further contends that as per Rule 13, the first Town
Vending Committee is to be formed after conducting elections from
amongst the street vendors who had applied in the 2007 scheme in the
MCD/NDMC plus street vendors whose names find mentioned in the
list prepared by the Chopra Committee and Thareja Committee and
also any other vendor who has been issued a licence or any other form
of permission by the local authorities. Counsel also contends that the
Corporations had given a public notice calling upon the street vendors
to produce documents for verification and for which sufficient time
was not granted forcing the petitioners in W.P.(C). 6672/2018 to
approach this Court and this Court had directed the Corporations to
give reasonable notice of 30 days to the street vendors to submit
documents for verification. Counsel for the petitioners submits that
after the verification as per his information barely 10% persons have
been found eligible and, thus further time should be granted to the
street vendors to file objections.
3. Another grievance of the petitioners is that the Corporations are not
uploading the notices and lists on the website, resulting in great
inconvenience to the street vendors as the lists are displayed on the
notice boards which are removed leaving the street vendors
completely helpless and at the mercy of the touts.
4. Counsel for the petitioners thus, prays that the Corporations be
directed to forthwith display and upload the list of voters on the
websites and further reasonable opportunity be granted to the street
vendors to file objections.
5. Learned counsels appearing for the Corporations have opposed these
petitions, firstly on the ground of delays and latches. It is submitted
that the petitioners were well aware of the procedure which is being
adopted by the Corporations. The petitioners had filed an earlier writ
petition praying that sufficient time be granted to the street vendors to
produce documents for verification. Counsels contend that in case of
any grievance, the petitioners should have pointed out the same in the
writ petition so filed or soon after the first public notice which was
issued way back in the month of April, 2018. Counsel further submits
that the sole attempt of the petitioners is to derail the elections process.
Counsels for the respondents also submit that the Corporations have
not flawed Rule 13. It is contended that the procedure for verification
is not unknown prior to holding elections. It is submitted that the
object of verification of documents of the street vendors is to weed out
dead voters and with a view to avoid bogus voting. It is further
pointed out that the combined list of Chopra Committee and street
vendors who had applied in the 2007 scheme was prior to the division
of the Corporation into three zones in the year 2012. Learned
counsels submit that to enable the Corporations to prepare the lists
zone-wise, the verification was necessary.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Rule 13 of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of
Street Vending) Act, 2017 reads as under:
"13. Election to the elected member of Town Vending
Committee-
(1) The first Town Vending Committee will be formed after
conducting elections from amongst Street vendors who had
applied in 2007 scheme in MCD/NDMC plus Street Vendors
whose names find mentioned in the list prepared by Chopra
Committee and Thareja Committee. The electors will also
include any other vendor who has been issued a license or any
other form of permission by the local authorities whether as a
statutory vendor, mobile vendor or under any other category
before commencement of the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection
of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
Provided that the initial Town Vending Committee will
discharge its function as for the purpose of survey and the
issue of certificate of vending and it shall ensure that once the
survey is complete, the elections are conducted within six
months.
Provided further the Commissioner/CEO/Chairperson of the
local authorities may conduct subsequent elections after
revision of its electoral rolls from time to time."
8. Reading of the Rule 13 would show that for the formation of the first
Town Vending Committee, the election is to be conducted from
amongst the street vendors who had (i) applied in 2007 scheme in
MCD/NDMC; (ii) street vendors whose names find mentioned in the
list prepared by Chopra Committee and Thareja Committee; and (iii)
other vendor who have been issued a license or any other form of
permission by the local authorities.
9. After some hearing in the matters, learned counsels appearing for the
Corporations submits, on instructions, that as far as prayers (a) and (b)
are concerned, the respective Corporations would have no objection.
They submit that the list prepared by the Chopra Committee and the
common list of applications prepared pursuant to the 2007 Scheme
and also the eligible street vendors whatever is available would be
uploaded on the website within two days, if not already done. As far
as Prayers (c), (d) and (e) are concerned, learned counsels for the
Corporations have drawn the attention of the Court to an order passed
by the Supreme Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.7617/2016 dated 07.05.2018 in the case of Mazhar Ali & Ors. Vs.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. The aforesaid order
reads as under:
"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
The Commissioner of South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
i.e. Mr.Puneet Kumar Goel, is present in Court pursuant to our
order dated 3rd May, 2018. He states that the electoral roll will
be finalized by the end of the month and objections have been
invited already.
We made it clear that the date of 31st May, 2018 will not
be extended under any circumstances for dealing with the
objections.
He further states that the election will take place within a
period of three months thereafter, i.e., sometime in the month
of August, 2018.
List the matter in the first week of September, 2018.
The Commissioner of South Delhi Municipal Corporation
need not remain present on the next date of hearing."
10. Learned counsels for respondents submit that in case prayers (c), (d)
and (e) are considered, it would amount to violation of the order
passed by the Supreme Court of India dated 07.05.2018 wherein the
Supreme Court has made it clear that no extension is to be granted
under any circumstances for dealing with the objections.
11. Counsel for the petitioners insists that this Court should allow the
street vendors to file objections prior to conducting of elections.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that objections could not have been
decided by 31.05.2018 as objections were not invited by the
Corporations. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that despite
the orders of the Court, no public notice was given in the newspapers
by the North DMC and EDMC. He submits that time was extended
and the notice of extension of time was displayed only on their notice
boards, websites and not inserted in the newspapers. However,
counsels for the EDMC and North DMC submit that notices were
displayed on their website and on the notice boards and thus no
prejudice was caused to the street vendors.
12. Based on the submissions made by the respective counsels for the
Corporations, on instructions of their respective officers present in the
Court, Prayers (a) and (b) made in the writ petitions are allowed.
13. However, counsels for the Corporations have opposed prayers (c), (d)
and (e) on the ground that in case objections are invited at this stage,
the elections will have to be postponed and even otherwise, such a
direction would in violation of the orders passed by the Supreme
Court.
14. We find force to the submissions made by the counsels for the
Corporations. The petitioners were well-aware of the procedure being
adopted by the Corporations for conducting the elections which is
evident upon the fact that an earlier writ petition was filed by them
seeking extension of time for filing of documents for verifications. In
case the petitioners were aggrieved by the procedure which was being
followed by the Corporations, they should have approached this Court
at the earliest point of time. We are also of the view that in case the
objections are invited, at this stage it would not only result in elections
being postponed but would also be in violation of the orders passed by
the Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, the prayers (c), (d) and (e)
are declined.
15. With these directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
CM.APPL 25395/2018 in W.P.(C) 6672/2018
CM.APPL 25396/2018 in W.P.(C) 6673/2018
16. The applications stand disposed of in view of the orders passed in the
writ petitions.
17. Dasti.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 03, 2018/rb/pst
