Delhi High Court
G Raju vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 19 March, 2018
$~112
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 19TH March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2588/2018
G RAJU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Babbar, Advocate.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Puja Kalra, Advocate for NDMC.
Ms. Isha Khanna, Advocate for R-2.
SI Bajrang (D-6013), PS-Karol Bagh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPLN. No. 10628/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W. P. (C) 2588/2018
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 regular street vendor and is vending at Site
No. 13/9, WEA, Padam Singh Road, Near J&K Emporium, Karol
Bagh, New Delhi. Under the threat of being removed has led to
filing of the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact
that the Rules of Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood
and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules 2017 have been notified
on 10.01.2018, the petitioner would approach the Town Vending
Committee (TVC) with the supporting documents. He seeks a
direction that as and when the TVC is constituted, his name should
be considered and merely because he is not found vending at the
site when the survey is conducted, that should not a ground to
reject his case.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits
that the area in question is no hawking zone and the street vendors
have been removed as and when the drive is conducted. However,
they return back to the area in question. Learned counsel without
admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition, submits
that should the petitioner make 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
CM APPLN. No. 10627/2018 (Stay)
In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the present
application stands disposed of.
G. S. SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MARCH 19, 2018
gr
