64...,Q Mr M.RaisFarooqui, Advocate for petitioners in itemno.4y. Ms ShraddhaBhargava, Advocate for R-1initemno.29 Mr Pankaj Batra, Advocate forDelhiPolice initemnos.29, 45 & 51. Mr Vinod Wadhwa, Advocate for R-2 initemno.39. Or S.P. Sharma, Advocate for

64...,Q Mr M.RaisFarooqui, Advocate for petitioners in itemno.4y. Ms ShraddhaBhargava, Advocate for R-1initemno.29 Mr Pankaj Batra, Advocate forDelhiPolice initemnos.29, 45 & 51. Mr Vinod Wadhwa, Advocate for R-2 initemno.39. Or S.P. Sharma, Advocate for R-2 in item no.32 & 41. Mrs AnjuGupta andMr Roshan Lai Goel, Advocates for SDMC/ 1 in item no.43., r d t Mr N. A.Khan, Advocate for Mr H. S. Sachdeva. Advocate lor R-. in item no.43. oo on p MrRajeev Sharma, Advocate for R-2 in item nos.28, 30 & 50. 2015:DHC:11339 MrR.K.Yadav,Advocatefor DelhiPolice in item no48 Mr Ajay,Advocatefor R/-1/SDMC in item no.39. Mr Vijay Dalai,Advocate forSDMCin item no45 MrN.K.Jha,Advocate for R-2,SHO,PSTilak Marg in item no.47. Mr Laliet Kumar and Mr Vipin Malik,Advocate for MCD in ite,^ no.^y, nF Mr Vinay Kumar Yadav and Mr R. K. Yadav, Advocates f^ respondent in item no.48. MrSubodh Kumar,AdvocateforR-2in item nos.53&60 Ms Chanchal Sharma, Advocate for R-2.SH0 PS Mandir Mars in Item no.59. ^ Mr Anjum Javed, Advocate for R-2/SH0,PS Tilak Marg,in it*n no.63. \ Mr Varun Nischal,AdvocateforR-l/SDMCin item no.64. MrH.R.Kapur,Advocatefor petitioner in item no.48 Mr Vikas Chopra,AdvocateforR-l/SDMC in item no.51. Ms Mallika Mendhiratta, Advocate for Ms Vibha Mahajan Advocate for R-2 in item no.64. ' Mr Arjun Pant and Mr Vipin Tyagi, Advocates for NDMC in item 59, ou,oj,65 & 66. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER 09.03.2015 The petitioners have fiied the present petitions seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing the petitioners in carrying on with their respective trades.The petitioners ciaim to be squatters who are carrying on their respectivetrades on thestreets. This is disputed by the iearned counselfor the respondents. The iearned counsel forthe parties pointoutthatseveralsimilar petitions have been considered by this Court and have been disposed ofwith a direction, enabling the petitioners to make representations before the Committee to be constituted under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation ofStreetVending)Act,2014(hereafterthe'Acf)which hascomeinto force w.e.f. 04.03.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon one / suchorderpassedin W.P.(C)No.5580/2014.whichreadsasunder:- "Present writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the respondents notto obstruct or disturb'he petittone.in ™ on their trade from their respective sites till the Town venQing romr^ittee ofNDMC issues certificate ofvendingto the petitioners Committee oi thp Street Vendors(Protection of in accordance with Section 3(3)ofthe ^hereinafter Livelihood and Regulation ofStreet Vending)Act 2014(hermnatte referred to as 'Act, 2014') and in terms of order dated UOt September 2013passed bytheSupremeCourtinMaharashtraEha Hawkers Union amiAnother vs. Municipal Corporation, Greatet MumbaiandAnr.,2013(11)SCALE329.. 3^3^ f^^e Learned counsel for petitioners relies on Section 3(3)o the Act,2014to pray that petitioners be allowed to continue to squat "iTstportihissubmissions,hereliesuponthejudgmentof the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekfa Hawkers Union and Another(supra)wherein ithas been held as under;-

"16. 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 nil the exercise ofregistration and creation ofvendtng/l^wking Tones is completed in terms of,he 2009 Policy. Once the,, exercise is completed, they shall be entitled to operate only in accordance with the orders/direct,ons of the rnncemed Town Vending Committee." lTtZ 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 ( '"Limed counselfor respondent-NDMC accordance with the Act, 2014, petitioners should raise their grievances before the Town Vending Committee (hereinafl referred to as'Committee')..v,r,vtr also states that Leamed counsel for respondent-NDMC also states t tlroughtLCommitteehasbeen appointed,yetitisnotfunctionalas °"'°"Tn rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioners vehemently nSc '^yl=^"ied counselforrespondent- Having heard learned counsel for parties,this Court is ofthe view that disputed questions of fact are involved in the nresent 20 opinion that in view ofthe Act 2014 having come into force on 4th March,2014,the appropriate orum to decidethe hs between the parties isthe Committee. he Act,2014providesforconstitution ofaCommittee which scheme for relocation. Section 3(3)ofthe Act,2014 clearly states atnostreetvendorshall be evicted orrelocated tillsurveyspecified under sub-Section(l) has been completed and the ceitiS of vending has been issued to all street vendors. Commiucc''?"'"," is directed to luake the Dermtad1n",']?" Petitioners are perirofeighf^eekt ^^e Comtuittee within a directed^rdecirffi'"'''''''"'""™' Cmnmittee is ■ greeted decide the same expeditiously, preferably within six With the aforesaid direetions, present writ petitions and applications are disposed of." pcuuons ana The learned counsel for the respondents submit that although it had been stated thata Committee underthe Acthad been constituted,however,the correct' fact IS that the Committee is yet to be constituted. He aiso points out that the directions have already been issued by this Court for constitution of the Committee in a time bound manner and the Committee is expected to be functional within afew months. Inthecircumstances,thepresentpetitionsandthepending applicationsare disposed of in terms of the order dated 29.08.2014 passed in W.P.tC) No.5580/2014 and the petitioners are permitted to make representations to the Committee asand when constituted. ^ Order dasti. v— march 09,2015/MK VIBHU BAKHRU,J m \