Delhi High Court
Kanchan Lal And Ors. vs New Delhi Municipal Council ... on 14 September, 2018
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 14th September, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9621/2018
KANCHAN LAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Dharmender Sharma, Advocate
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (NDMC) AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Tushar Sannu, ASC with Mr.Ankit
Jain, Adv. for NDMC.
Mr.Dhruv Rohatgi, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M.Nos.37463-37464/2018 (exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject all just exceptions.
Both the applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9621/2018
1. The petitioners claim to be regular street vendors and are stated to be
carrying out their vending activities at various sites as mentioned in the writ
petition. Mr.Dharmender Sharma, counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners apprehend that post the formation of the TVC and the survey
being conducted, the petitioners would be reallocated to different sites.
Mr.Sharma further submits that the petitioners are duly verified vendors of
the NDMC. In this backdrop, the following prayers have been made:
(a) Direct the Respondent no.1 and 2 for the issuance of
certificate of vending (COV) to the petitioners on their
respective given vending site after conducting survey in
accordance with law.
(b) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Pass such
other or further orders, as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. We find that there is no foundation laid in the body of the writ
petition, which would support the apprehension expressed by learned
counsel for the petitioners.
4. At this stage, Mr.Sharma submits that the petitioners would approach
the TVC as and when it is functional with all supporting documents. He
further seeks a direction to the TVC to consider the case of the petitioners in
accordance with law and that merely because the petitioners may not find
squatting at the time of survey, that alone should not be a ground to reject
their case.
5. Mr.Tushar Sannu, counsel for the SDMC/respondents, without
admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition, submit that should
the petitioners make an application with all supporting documents before the
TVC, the same would be considered in accordance with law and merely
because the petitioners are not found squatting, that itself alone would not be
a ground to reject their case.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the following
agreed directions:-
(a) The petitioners would approach the TVC as and when it is
constituted with all supporting documents;
(b) The TVC will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance
with law after taking into consideration all the material placed
on record;
(c) Merely because the petitioners are not found vending at the site
when the survey is conducted, that by itself would not be a
ground alone to reject their 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. In above terms, the writ petition stand disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018
rb
