Full Text
Translation output
$-19, 20 & 22 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.IO 2296/2015
KAMALA BAWARIA Petitioner
W.P.IO 2296/2015
KAMALA BAWARIA Petitioner
VERSUS
NDMC AND ANR Respondents AND W.P.fO 2306/2015 & CM No.4135/2Q15
RAM GANI Petitioner
RAM GANI Petitioner
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents
AND
W.P.(C) 2325/2015 & CM Nos.4171-73/20I5
RAM SINGH Petitioner
RAM SINGH Petitioner
VERSUS
NORTH MUNICIPAL CORPOIUCnON OF DPTJII (MOD) & ANR Respondents
Through; Mr Amit Kumar Dubey, Advocate foi" petitioner in item no. 19.
Mr Anand Shailani, .Advocate for petitioner in item no.20.
Mr Dharmender Sharma, Advocate for petitioner in item no.22.
Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for NDMC in item nos.l9 & 20.
Mr Gursharan Singh, Advocate for R- 2 in item no.20.
Ms Purnima Maheshwari and Mr D. K. Singh, Advocates for R-2 in item no.22.
Through; Mr Amit Kumar Dubey, Advocate foi" petitioner in item no. 19.
Mr Anand Shailani, .Advocate for petitioner in item no.20.
Mr Dharmender Sharma, Advocate for petitioner in item no.22.
Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for NDMC in item nos.l9 & 20.
Mr Gursharan Singh, Advocate for R- 2 in item no.20.
Ms Purnima Maheshwari and Mr D. K. Singh, Advocates for R-2 in item no.22.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
1L03.2015 The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking an injunction
2015:DHC:11354 restraining the respondents iTom disturbing the petitiohers 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 [)een disposed of with a direction, enabling the petitioners to make representations before the Committee to be constituted under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and
Regulation of Street Vending) Act. 2014 (hereafter the 'AcT) which has come into force w.e.f. 04.0.3.2014. The learned counsel for the pititioners rely upvH one such order passed in W.P.(C)'No.5580/2014. which reads ^s under;-
•'Present writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to obstruet or disturb the petitioners in carrying on their trade from their respective sites till the Town Vending
Committee ofNDMC issues certificate of vending ^o the petitioners in accordance with Section 3(3) ofthe Street Venders (Protection of
Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act. 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2014") and in terms of ofder dated 09th September, 2013 passed by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta
Hawkers Union and Another vs. Municipal Corp^oration, Greater
Mumbai andAnr., 2013(11) SCALE 329. ! Learned counsel for petitioners relies on Sedtion 3(3) of the
Act. 2014 to pray that petitioners be allowed to conitinue to squat at their respective sites. |
In support of his submissions, he relies upon Ithe
1L03.2015 The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking an injunction
2015:DHC:11354 restraining the respondents iTom disturbing the petitiohers 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 [)een disposed of with a direction, enabling the petitioners to make representations before the Committee to be constituted under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and
Regulation of Street Vending) Act. 2014 (hereafter the 'AcT) which has come into force w.e.f. 04.0.3.2014. The learned counsel for the pititioners rely upvH one such order passed in W.P.(C)'No.5580/2014. which reads ^s under;-
•'Present writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to obstruet or disturb the petitioners in carrying on their trade from their respective sites till the Town Vending
Committee ofNDMC issues certificate of vending ^o the petitioners in accordance with Section 3(3) ofthe Street Venders (Protection of
Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act. 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2014") and in terms of ofder dated 09th September, 2013 passed by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta
Hawkers Union and Another vs. Municipal Corp^oration, Greater
Mumbai andAnr., 2013(11) SCALE 329. ! Learned counsel for petitioners relies on Sedtion 3(3) of the
Act. 2014 to pray that petitioners be allowed to conitinue to squat at their respective sites. |
In support of his submissions, he relies upon Ithe
ORDER
the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawf^^rs Union and
Another (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
"16. For facilitating implementation o}( the 2009
Policy, we issue thefollowing directions: I XXXT xxxx xxxx j xxxx j
(xv) All the existing street vendors / hawkeif operating across the country shall be allowed to operate till the exercise ofregistration and creation ofvending / hawking zones is completed in terms of the 2009 Policf Once that exercise is completed, they shall be entitled\to operate only in accordance with the orders/directions of the concerned Town Vending Committee. "
Learned counsel for respondenl-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) of
Act, 2014.
Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC further states that in accordance with the Act, 2014, petitioners should raise their grievanees before the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter referred to as •Committee").
Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC also states thai though the Committee has been appointed, yet it is not functional as oftoday.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioners vehementi} 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 slates that no street vendor shall be evicted or relocated till survey specified under sub-Section( 1) 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 arc permitted to file their representations with the Committee within a 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 olV" .
The learned counsel for the respondents submit that although it had been stated that a Committee under the Act had been constituted, however, the correci fact is that the Committee is yet to be constituted. He also points out that the
V directions have already been issued by this Court jfor eonstitution of the
Committee in a time bound manner and the Committee is expected to be funetional within a Few months.
In the circumstances, the present petitions and the pending applications are disposed of in terms of the order dated 29.08.20
No.5580/2014 and the petitioners are permitted to mak
Committee as and when eonstituted.
Order dasti.
MARCH 11,2015 MK 4 passed in W.P.(C) i representations to the
VIBHU BAKHRll, J
Another (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
"16. For facilitating implementation o}( the 2009
Policy, we issue thefollowing directions: I XXXT xxxx xxxx j xxxx j
(xv) All the existing street vendors / hawkeif operating across the country shall be allowed to operate till the exercise ofregistration and creation ofvending / hawking zones is completed in terms of the 2009 Policf Once that exercise is completed, they shall be entitled\to operate only in accordance with the orders/directions of the concerned Town Vending Committee. "
Learned counsel for respondenl-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) of
Act, 2014.
Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC further states that in accordance with the Act, 2014, petitioners should raise their grievanees before the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter referred to as •Committee").
Learned counsel for respondent-NDMC also states thai though the Committee has been appointed, yet it is not functional as oftoday.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioners vehementi} 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 slates that no street vendor shall be evicted or relocated till survey specified under sub-Section( 1) 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 arc permitted to file their representations with the Committee within a 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 olV" .
The learned counsel for the respondents submit that although it had been stated that a Committee under the Act had been constituted, however, the correci fact is that the Committee is yet to be constituted. He also points out that the
V directions have already been issued by this Court jfor eonstitution of the
Committee in a time bound manner and the Committee is expected to be funetional within a Few months.
In the circumstances, the present petitions and the pending applications are disposed of in terms of the order dated 29.08.20
No.5580/2014 and the petitioners are permitted to mak
Committee as and when eonstituted.
Order dasti.
MARCH 11,2015 MK 4 passed in W.P.(C) i representations to the
VIBHU BAKHRll, J