Full Text
Translation output
$-41, 49 & 50 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 433/2015
LAL BABU BHAGAT Petitioner
W.P.(C) 433/2015
LAL BABU BHAGAT Petitioner
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (ROHINI ZONE) Respondent
AND
W.P.(C) 461/2015
RAMESH KUMAR ' Petitioner
RAMESH KUMAR ' Petitioner
VERSUS
AND
W.P.(C) 465/2015
AJAY KUTN/TAR Petitioner
AJAY KUTN/TAR Petitioner
VERSUS
Through: Mr Alok Sharma, Advocate for petitioners in items no.41, 49 & 50.
Mr Ajay Arora and Mr Kapil Dutta, Advocates for NDMC in item nos.41, 49 & 50.
Mr Ajay Arora and Mr Kapil Dutta, Advocates for NDMC in item nos.41, 49 & 50.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
16.01.2015 CM No.717/2015 in W.P.(C) 433/2015
CM No.764/2015 in W.P.(C) 461/2015 CM No.770/2015 in W.P.(C) 465/2015
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
2015:DHC:11488 W.P.fC) 433/2015 & CM No.718/2015
16.01.2015 CM No.717/2015 in W.P.(C) 433/2015
CM No.764/2015 in W.P.(C) 461/2015 CM No.770/2015 in W.P.(C) 465/2015
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
2015:DHC:11488 W.P.fC) 433/2015 & CM No.718/2015
W.P.(C) 461/2015 & CM No.765/2015
W.P.(C) 465/2015 & CM No.771/2015
The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeidng an injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing the petitioners in carrying on with tiieir 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 thist^ourt and have been 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 vv.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 adirect!^" to the respondents not to obstruct or disturb the petitioners in carrying on their trade from their respective sites till the Town
Vending Committee of NDMC issues certificate of vending 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 Miimbai 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 at their respective sites.
In support of his submissions, he relies upon the
The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeidng an injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing the petitioners in carrying on with tiieir 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 thist^ourt and have been 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 vv.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 adirect!^" to the respondents not to obstruct or disturb the petitioners in carrying on their trade from their respective sites till the Town
Vending Committee of NDMC issues certificate of vending 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 Miimbai 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 at their respective sites.
In support of his submissions, he relies upon the
ORDER
of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers
Union and Another (supra) wherein it has 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 till the exercise of registration and creation of vending / hawking zones is completed in terms of
, ,. • the 2009 Policy. Once that exercise is completed, they shall he entitled, to operate only in accordance with the orders/directions ofthe cdncerned 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) of Act, 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 1is 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 within a period of eight weeks.
Upon the said representations being filed, the Committee is directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably vASin six months.
With the aforesaid directions, present writ petitions and"'^' applications are disposed of"
The learned coiinsel for the respondents submit that although it had been stated that a Committee under the Act had been.appointed, however, the correct fact is that: the Committee is yet to be constituted. He also points
^out that the direction's;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 after a period ofthree months.
In the circumstances, the present petitibris and the pending
> appHcations are disposed of in terms of the order dated 29.08.2014 passed in
W.P.(C) No.5580/2014 and the petitioners are permitted to niake representations to the,;Committee as and when constituted.
Order dasti.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 16, 2015 ryiK ' '
Union and Another (supra) wherein it has 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 till the exercise of registration and creation of vending / hawking zones is completed in terms of
, ,. • the 2009 Policy. Once that exercise is completed, they shall he entitled, to operate only in accordance with the orders/directions ofthe cdncerned 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) of Act, 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 1is 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 within a period of eight weeks.
Upon the said representations being filed, the Committee is directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably vASin six months.
With the aforesaid directions, present writ petitions and"'^' applications are disposed of"
The learned coiinsel for the respondents submit that although it had been stated that a Committee under the Act had been.appointed, however, the correct fact is that: the Committee is yet to be constituted. He also points
^out that the direction's;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 after a period ofthree months.
In the circumstances, the present petitibris and the pending
> appHcations are disposed of in terms of the order dated 29.08.2014 passed in
W.P.(C) No.5580/2014 and the petitioners are permitted to niake representations to the,;Committee as and when constituted.
Order dasti.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 16, 2015 ryiK ' '