Suman Devi vs North Delhi Municipal ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 1416 Del

$~12
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Date of Judgment: 11.03.2019
+       W.P.(C) 4472/2018 & CM APPL. 17242/2018

        SUMAN DEVI                                            ..... Petitioner
                               Through:     Mr. Sanket Gupta, Advocate

                               versus


        NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Nitya Rao & Mr. Shekhar Vyas,
                               Advocate for R-1
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner claims to be regular tehbazari holder of site 17349 situated at site No. 47, measuring 7 X 5 (covered), at Bapu Market, Gandhi Maidan, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. The petitioner received a notice dated 24.04.2018, which was handed over by the officials of the Respondent to one person in Bapu Market on 25.04.2018, from whom petitioner collected the notice on 26.04.2018, calling upon her to vacate the tehbazari site by 30.04.2018, and take possession of site No. 21 at Mata Sundari Road, Delhi, failing which eviction action would be taken by the Department.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following prayers:

"1) Issue a Writ of Certiorari thereby quashing the Offer of Relocation/Vacation notice dated 24.04.2018,

2) Issue a Writ of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent to not dispossess or obstruct or disturb the petitioner from squatting at the site situated at tehbazari site 17349 situated at Site No. 47 Shop No. 62 measuring 7 X 5 (covered) at Bapu Market HC Sain Delhi,"

3. By an order of 27.04.2018, the respondent was restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner till next date of hearing. Therefter, this Court by an order dated 18.05.2018, after hearing counsel for parties, had vacated the interim order so granted primarily on the ground that the land on which the Kiosk of the petitioner was situated, was required for public purpose.

4. We are informed that the site, from where the petitioner was operating, has been taken over by the respondent and an alternate site has been provided.

5. In view of what has been stated above, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. The same is accordingly disposed of.

G.S.SISTANI, J

JYOTI SINGH, J

MARCH 11, 2019 rd