Delhi High Court
Gopal Srivastava vs The Govt (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 30 April, 2019
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 30.04.2019
+ LPA 213/2016
GOPAL SRIVASTAVA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.M. Kashyap and Mr.
Mushtaque Ahmad, Advocates.
versus
THE GOVT (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate for
GNCTD.
Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for
NDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal lays challenge to an order passed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court dated 30.10.2015.
2. Mr. M.M. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant is a regular street vendor and he has been vending
outside Shani Mandir, Chandni Chowk for the past many years. It is also the
case of the appellant that he had applied under the Scheme of 2007. The
officers of the respondent have been threatening to remove him and he is not
allowed to carry out his trade and business without obstruction.
Additionally, he submits that since he had applied in the year 2007, till the
TVC is formed and the survey is carried out, his possession should not be
disturbed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the MCD submits that the appellant is
not a regular street vendor. He submits that an affidavit has been filed in
which the respondent has clearly disputed that the appellant is vending at
Gate No. 5, Metro Station near Shani Mandir, Chandni Chowk, as claimed
by the appellant. It is submitted that an inspection was carried out by the
officials of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and as per the inspection
report, the appellant was not found anywhere near the place where he claims
to be squatting. It is further submitted that the challans filed by the appellant
pertain to Esplanade Road.
4. The next contention of the counsel for the respondent is that in any
case, now the TVC has been formed and a scheme has been notified by the
Delhi Government on 15.04.2019. Thus the appellant can approach the TVC
for verification of his documents. He, however, adds that as per the records
of the MCD, no application was made by the appellant in the year 2007 and
hence no protection can be granted to him. He also points out that the site in
question is a congested area and a non-hawking and non-vending zone and
has been handed over to OMEX for redevelopment of a parking site.
5. Mr. M.M. Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant relies on an
order passed by the Supreme Court of India dated 18.5.2018 in W.P. (C)
4677/1985 in a case titled as M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Ors., and
more particularly the following paragraph:-
"(ii) He further says that those vendors who come in the day
time and go away in the evening or at night or who may be
moving from place to place will not be disturbed provided they
have any authorization or permission for vending at a specific
location or who have applied under the 2007 scheme."
6. Reacting to the said order, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the said order would not apply to him as the site in question in the
present case is a non-hawking and non-vending zone. Mr. Kashyap submits
that assuming what the respondent says is correct for the sake of arguments,
it is only the petitioner, who has been singled out, while the others continue
to squat.
7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
8. In a nutshell, the grievance of the appellant is that despite being a
regular street vendor and having applied under the 2007 scheme, his
possession has been disturbed. While on one hand, the appellant claims that
he is a regular street vendor, near Metro Station Shani Mandir, Chandni
Chowk, the counsel for the respondent submits that the two challans placed
on record by the appellant himself do not support the stand of the appellant.
Learned counsel, therefore, also argues that these are disputed questions of
fact and which should not be decided in a LPA.
9. We are persuaded by the submissions made by learned counsel for the
respondent. There is nothing on record to show conclusively that the
appellant has been regularly squatting at the site claimed by him. Even
otherwise, now the TVC has been convened and the scheme stands notified
by the Delhi Government on 15.04.2019. We, thus, dispose of this appeal
with the direction that in case the appellant approaches TVC with all
supporting documents, the TVC will consider the case of the appellant in
accordance with law and unaffected by any observations made by us in this
order.
10. With these directions, the LPA stands disposed of accordingly.
G.S.SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
APRIL 30, 2019
AK/rd
