Kela Bawariya v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr

Delhi High Court · 08 Jul 2015 · 2015:DHC:11173
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
W.P.(C) 6396/2015
2015:DHC:11173
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed multiple petitions by street vendors seeking to restrain eviction by NDMC, relying on prior orders and emphasizing prevention of repetitive litigation.

Full Text
Translation output
/ $34to36,38to41,43to45 &2to3 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
• W.P.(C) 6396/2015
KELA BAWARIYA Petitioner
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents
• W.P.(C) 6402/2015
GULAB Petitioner
VERSUS
• W.P.(C) 6404/2015
SUIPYAR BAWARIYA Petitioner
VERSUS
• W.P.(C) 6408/2015
BI-IOTI Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C)6409/2015
RAM SWAROOP BAWARIYA Petitioner
VERSUS
• W.P.(C) 6410/2015
KAMOD Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 6411/2015
PHOOL WATT Petitioner 2015:DHC:11173
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR
W.P.(C) 6431/2015
HUKUM BAI
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 6433/2015
RAMS WAROOP BAWARIYA
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 6444/2015
RADHA
Respondents Petitioner 1
VERSUS
± W.P.(C) 6333/2015 MAMTA
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 6335/2015
MUKESH
VERSUS
No NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Satish Kurnar Tripathi, Adv.
Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Aijun Pant and Mr. Vipin Tyagi, Advs. for NDMC.
Page 2of3 June, 2015 supra.
JULY 08, 2015/bs..
DLAW, J.
Page of 3 g
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
08.07.2015
ORDER

1. These petitions have been filed by street vendors, seeking to restrain the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) from removing them from the respective sites from which each of the petitioners claims to be street vending.

2. The counsel for the petitioners states that these petitions be also disposed of in terms of the order dated 301h October, 2014 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7337/2014 titled Nagendra Yadav Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council. Ak

3. This Court vide detailed order dated 301h June, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.6115/2015 titled Brahm Pal Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and other connected petitions has observed that no purpose is being served in filing these petitions and that the petitions, if continue to be filed, shall be dismissed with costs.

4. The counsel for the petitioners states that he was not aware of the said order, though has heard of the same.

5. In that view of the matter, even though these petitions were filed on 3rd July, 2015 and re-filed on 6th July, 2015 i.e. after the order dated 30th June, 2015, but I am refraining from imposing any costs.

6. All these petitions are disposed of in terms of the order dated 30th