Full Text
Translation output
3^ $-38 to41, 46,%7, 48&50 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C^ 4180/2015 & CM No.7576/2015 VINOD
W.P.(C^ 4180/2015 & CM No.7576/2015 VINOD
VERSUS
NDMC& ANR AND W.P.(0 4182/2015 & CM No.7578/2015
RANJEET KUMAR
RANJEET KUMAR
VERSUS
NDMC & ANR AND
W.P.(C) 4183/2015 & CM No.7579/2015
SUSHIL GUPTA
SUSHIL GUPTA
VERSUS
AND
W.P.(C) 4184/2015 & CM No.7580/2015
ANKIT GUPTA
ANKIT GUPTA
VERSUS
AND
W.P.(C) 4215/2015 & CM No.7624/2015
RAJU
RAJU
VERSUS
AND
W.P.(C^ 4216/2015 & CM No.7625/2015 SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA
W.P.(C^ 4216/2015 & CM No.7625/2015 SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA
VERSUS
AND
W.P.(C) 4217/2015 & CM No.7626/2015
VUAY SHAH
Petitioner Respondents , Petitioner ,Respondents
. Petitioner . Respondents . Petitioner . Respondents
.. Petitioner .. Respondents .. Respondents 2015:DHC:10951
VUAY SHAH
Petitioner Respondents , Petitioner ,Respondents
. Petitioner . Respondents . Petitioner . Respondents
.. Petitioner .. Respondents .. Respondents 2015:DHC:10951
VERSUS
NDMC & ANR Respondents AND W.P.(a 4219/2015 & CM No.7628/2015
CHANDU Petitioner
CHANDU Petitioner
VERSUS
NDMC & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr Anand Shailani, Advocate for petitioners in itemnos.38 to 41 & 46 to 48.
Mr N. A. Khan, Advocate for Mr H. S. Sachdeva, Advocate for R-2/SH0 in item no.39.
Mr Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Mr Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for R-2 in item no.41.
Ms Chanchal Sharma, Advocate for R-2 in item nos.40 & 50.
Mr ArjunPant withMr VipinTyagi, Advocates for NDMC in item nos.38 to 41, 47, 48&50.
Ms Sangeeta Sondhi and Mr Ajay Kalra, Advocates for R-2 in item no.38.
Mr Abhijoy Banerjee, Advocate for Mr Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for R-2.
Through: Mr Anand Shailani, Advocate for petitioners in itemnos.38 to 41 & 46 to 48.
Mr N. A. Khan, Advocate for Mr H. S. Sachdeva, Advocate for R-2/SH0 in item no.39.
Mr Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Mr Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for R-2 in item no.41.
Ms Chanchal Sharma, Advocate for R-2 in item nos.40 & 50.
Mr ArjunPant withMr VipinTyagi, Advocates for NDMC in item nos.38 to 41, 47, 48&50.
Ms Sangeeta Sondhi and Mr Ajay Kalra, Advocates for R-2 in item no.38.
Mr Abhijoy Banerjee, Advocate for Mr Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
28.04.2015 The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing the petitioners in carrying on with their respective trades. The petitioners claim to be squatters who are carrying on their respective trades on the streets. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the parties point out that several similar petitions have been considered by this Court and have been disposed ofwith adirection, enabling the petitioners to make representations before the Committee to be constituted under the Street
Vendors (Protection ofLivelihood and Regulation ofStreet Vending) Act, 2014 (hereafter the 'Act) which has come into force w.e.f. 04.03.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon one such order passed in
W.P.(C) No.5580/2014, which reads as under;- "Present writ petitions have been filed seeking adirection to the respondents not to obstruct or disturb the petitioners in carrying on their trade from their respective sites till the Town
Vending Committee ofNDMC issues certificate ofvending to the petitioners in accordance with Section 3(3) of the Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2014') and in terms of order dated 09th September, 2013 passed by the
Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and
Another vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and
Anr., 2013(11) SCALE 329.
Learned counsel for petitioners relies on Section 3(3) of the Act, 2014 to pray that petitioners be allowed to continue to squat attheirrespective sites.
In support of his submissions, he relies upon the
28.04.2015 The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing the petitioners in carrying on with their respective trades. The petitioners claim to be squatters who are carrying on their respective trades on the streets. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the parties point out that several similar petitions have been considered by this Court and have been disposed ofwith adirection, enabling the petitioners to make representations before the Committee to be constituted under the Street
Vendors (Protection ofLivelihood and Regulation ofStreet Vending) Act, 2014 (hereafter the 'Act) which has come into force w.e.f. 04.03.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon one such order passed in
W.P.(C) No.5580/2014, which reads as under;- "Present writ petitions have been filed seeking adirection to the respondents not to obstruct or disturb the petitioners in carrying on their trade from their respective sites till the Town
Vending Committee ofNDMC issues certificate ofvending to the petitioners in accordance with Section 3(3) of the Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2014') and in terms of order dated 09th September, 2013 passed by the
Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and
Another vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and
Anr., 2013(11) SCALE 329.
Learned counsel for petitioners relies on Section 3(3) of the Act, 2014 to pray that petitioners be allowed to continue to squat attheirrespective sites.
In support of his submissions, he relies upon the
ORDER
ofthe Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers
Union andAnother (supra) wherein it has been held as underl ay(5. For facilitating implementation of the 2009
Policy, we issue thefollowing directions: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(xv) All the existing street vendors / hawkers operating across the country shall be allowed to operate till the exercise of registration and creation ofvending / hawking zones is completed in terms of the 2009 Policy. Once that exercise is completed, they shall be entitled to operate only in accordance with the orders/directions ofthe concerned Town Vending
Committee." Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC who appears on advance notice, states that the petitioners are not existing squatters and are, therefore, not entitled to protection under
Section 3(3) ofAct, 2014.
Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC further states that in accordance with the Act, 2014, petitioners should raise their grievances before the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter referred to as'Committee').
Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC also states that though the Committee has been appointed, yet it is not functional as oftoday.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioners vehemently disputes the contentions advanced by learned counsel for respondent-NDMC.
Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present petitions. This Court is also of the opinion that in view of the Act, 2014 having come into force on 4th March, 2014, the appropriate forum to decide the lis between the parties is the
Committee.
The Act, 2014 provides for constitution of a Committee which is to conduct survey of all existing street vendors and make the scheme for relocation. Section 3(3) of the Act, 2014 clearly states that no street vendor shall be evicted or relocated till survey specified under sub-Section(l) has been completed and the certificate of vending has been issued to all street vendors.
Consequently, the respondent-NDMC is directed to make the Committee functional as within eight weeks. Petitioners are permitted to file their representations with the Committee withina period of eight weeks.
Upon the said representations being filed, the Committee is directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within six months.
With the aforesaid directions, present writ petitions and applications are disposed of"
The learned counsel for the respondents submit that although it had been stated that a Committee under the Act had been appointed, however, the correct position is that the Committee is yet to be constituted. He also points out that the directions have already been issued by this. Court for constitution ofthe Committee ina time bound manner and the Committee is expected tobefunctional shortly.
In the circumstances, the present petitions and the pending applications are disposed ofin terms ofthe order dated 29.08.2014 passed in
W.P.(C) No.5580/2014 and the petitioners are permitted to make representations to the Committee as and when constituted.
Order dasti. . ^ VIBHU BAKHRU,J APRIL 28, 2015
MK
Union andAnother (supra) wherein it has been held as underl ay(5. For facilitating implementation of the 2009
Policy, we issue thefollowing directions: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(xv) All the existing street vendors / hawkers operating across the country shall be allowed to operate till the exercise of registration and creation ofvending / hawking zones is completed in terms of the 2009 Policy. Once that exercise is completed, they shall be entitled to operate only in accordance with the orders/directions ofthe concerned Town Vending
Committee." Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC who appears on advance notice, states that the petitioners are not existing squatters and are, therefore, not entitled to protection under
Section 3(3) ofAct, 2014.
Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC further states that in accordance with the Act, 2014, petitioners should raise their grievances before the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter referred to as'Committee').
Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC also states that though the Committee has been appointed, yet it is not functional as oftoday.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioners vehemently disputes the contentions advanced by learned counsel for respondent-NDMC.
Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present petitions. This Court is also of the opinion that in view of the Act, 2014 having come into force on 4th March, 2014, the appropriate forum to decide the lis between the parties is the
Committee.
The Act, 2014 provides for constitution of a Committee which is to conduct survey of all existing street vendors and make the scheme for relocation. Section 3(3) of the Act, 2014 clearly states that no street vendor shall be evicted or relocated till survey specified under sub-Section(l) has been completed and the certificate of vending has been issued to all street vendors.
Consequently, the respondent-NDMC is directed to make the Committee functional as within eight weeks. Petitioners are permitted to file their representations with the Committee withina period of eight weeks.
Upon the said representations being filed, the Committee is directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within six months.
With the aforesaid directions, present writ petitions and applications are disposed of"
The learned counsel for the respondents submit that although it had been stated that a Committee under the Act had been appointed, however, the correct position is that the Committee is yet to be constituted. He also points out that the directions have already been issued by this. Court for constitution ofthe Committee ina time bound manner and the Committee is expected tobefunctional shortly.
In the circumstances, the present petitions and the pending applications are disposed ofin terms ofthe order dated 29.08.2014 passed in
W.P.(C) No.5580/2014 and the petitioners are permitted to make representations to the Committee as and when constituted.
Order dasti. . ^ VIBHU BAKHRU,J APRIL 28, 2015
MK