Full Text
Translation output
e-l
% 11.08.20Lr
Present: Petitioner in Person
Mr, Jagmohan Sabharwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay
Arora, Advocate for MCD alongwith Mr. A.S. Yadav
Assistant Commissioner, City Zone, MCD.
Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Advocate for the intervener.
+ WP(C) No.2853/2010.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the nature of a public interest litigation seeking various directions as g set out hereunder:-
Present: Petitioner in Person
Mr, Jagmohan Sabharwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay
Arora, Advocate for MCD alongwith Mr. A.S. Yadav
Assistant Commissioner, City Zone, MCD.
Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Advocate for the intervener.
+ WP(C) No.2853/2010.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the nature of a public interest litigation seeking various directions as g set out hereunder:-
a
"(i). to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction whereby the respondents be directed to decongest the said Old Lajpat Rai Market and remove all the illegal encroachments both from within and outside Old Lajpat
Rai Market and further they be directed to remove all illegal encroachers, hawkers and squatters who have no right or authority to squat in and around Old Lajpat Rai
Market including Dewan Hall Road being a non-squatting area;
(ii). To direct the respondent to file complete record to present a clear picture of Old Lajpat Rai Market and its surrounding areas such as Dewan Hall Road, Bhagirath
Palace, etc. by placing before this Hon'ble Court the exact site plan of areas in and around Old Lajpat Rai
Market, photographs and also give complete details with regard to the number of hawkers and squatters authorized to squat in and around Old Lajpat Rai Market with specific site plan indicating the exact place of squatting and the policy framed and approved by the
Government of India for changing land use and specific sections of MCD Act which authorize MCD for change in land use without approval of DDA and Union of India, (iii). Further the respondent be directed to pave way for fire fighting personnel for stationing fire tenders and their free movement in and around Old Lajpat Rai Market a'
WP(C) No.2B53l2010
2011:DHC:17996-DB
I in the eventuality of any fire outbreak and the water reservoir to be made available situated qnder land which is not being maintained till date by MCD under their ad mi nistrative control ;
(iv). Further the respondents be directed to acqUaint this Hon'ble Court as to when the land use has been changed in case of facility areas of Old Lajpat Rai Market converting such area for raising portable stalls and allowing hawking on main Master Plan Road titled as
Dewan Hall Road and make it a commercial concept;
(v). further the respondents be directed to stop selling of eatables in Kesri Chowk, by squatters Old Lajpat Rai
Market outside public urinal and latrines as well near traffic signals adjoining pedestrian sub way on the Red
Fort crossing by unsocial person displaying the site as
Shanty Temple and to remove it immediately."
We may notice that in so far as the decongestion of the old
Lajpat Rai Market and removal of illegal encroachments in that area is concerned, the same are also subject matter of WP(C)
No.3332 11998 where the petitioner is an intervener, thus there is no purpose in duplication of issue raised in those proceedings in the captioned petition.
The next issue concerns squatting in that area and adequacy of pre-cautions taken qua possible fire hazards, unlicensed sale of eatables, etc.
Learned counsel for the MCD on instructions from Mr A.S.
Yadav, Assistant Commissioner, City Zone, MCD undertakes that t a r'
WP(C) No.2853/2010 rI
>) no squatting will Qe permitted in the areas in which squatting is net permissible; thege being areas whiqh find mention in the list submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
We further direct the MCD that before considering the issue of allotting any further rights for squatting, the Chief Fire
Officer of Delhi will be consulted. We are constrained to pass this direction as the area in issue is densely populated and therefore any failure on the part of the statutory authorities to pay heed to fire safety norms could result in ofl, avoidable, untoward incident$. Therefore, in our view, it is only in the eventuality of the Chief Fire Officer giving his no objection that the issue of any squatting and/or license vending could possibly arise. ln so far as hawkers selling food items are concerned, such persons should not be permitted to hawk unless they have been issued a license by the MCD.
In order to keep a vigil in the area, the Assistant
Commissioner of the area should make frequent periodical visits not less than once in a week. We may commend that atleast some visits ought to be conducted without the attendant paraphernalia or prior notice in order to get a realistic picture so that it can be found out whether there are any unauthorized person squatting or hawking in the area and whether the license holders are going beyond the area earmarked for them. lt may
"(i). to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction whereby the respondents be directed to decongest the said Old Lajpat Rai Market and remove all the illegal encroachments both from within and outside Old Lajpat
Rai Market and further they be directed to remove all illegal encroachers, hawkers and squatters who have no right or authority to squat in and around Old Lajpat Rai
Market including Dewan Hall Road being a non-squatting area;
(ii). To direct the respondent to file complete record to present a clear picture of Old Lajpat Rai Market and its surrounding areas such as Dewan Hall Road, Bhagirath
Palace, etc. by placing before this Hon'ble Court the exact site plan of areas in and around Old Lajpat Rai
Market, photographs and also give complete details with regard to the number of hawkers and squatters authorized to squat in and around Old Lajpat Rai Market with specific site plan indicating the exact place of squatting and the policy framed and approved by the
Government of India for changing land use and specific sections of MCD Act which authorize MCD for change in land use without approval of DDA and Union of India, (iii). Further the respondent be directed to pave way for fire fighting personnel for stationing fire tenders and their free movement in and around Old Lajpat Rai Market a'
WP(C) No.2B53l2010
2011:DHC:17996-DB
I in the eventuality of any fire outbreak and the water reservoir to be made available situated qnder land which is not being maintained till date by MCD under their ad mi nistrative control ;
(iv). Further the respondents be directed to acqUaint this Hon'ble Court as to when the land use has been changed in case of facility areas of Old Lajpat Rai Market converting such area for raising portable stalls and allowing hawking on main Master Plan Road titled as
Dewan Hall Road and make it a commercial concept;
(v). further the respondents be directed to stop selling of eatables in Kesri Chowk, by squatters Old Lajpat Rai
Market outside public urinal and latrines as well near traffic signals adjoining pedestrian sub way on the Red
Fort crossing by unsocial person displaying the site as
Shanty Temple and to remove it immediately."
We may notice that in so far as the decongestion of the old
Lajpat Rai Market and removal of illegal encroachments in that area is concerned, the same are also subject matter of WP(C)
No.3332 11998 where the petitioner is an intervener, thus there is no purpose in duplication of issue raised in those proceedings in the captioned petition.
The next issue concerns squatting in that area and adequacy of pre-cautions taken qua possible fire hazards, unlicensed sale of eatables, etc.
Learned counsel for the MCD on instructions from Mr A.S.
Yadav, Assistant Commissioner, City Zone, MCD undertakes that t a r'
WP(C) No.2853/2010 rI
>) no squatting will Qe permitted in the areas in which squatting is net permissible; thege being areas whiqh find mention in the list submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
We further direct the MCD that before considering the issue of allotting any further rights for squatting, the Chief Fire
Officer of Delhi will be consulted. We are constrained to pass this direction as the area in issue is densely populated and therefore any failure on the part of the statutory authorities to pay heed to fire safety norms could result in ofl, avoidable, untoward incident$. Therefore, in our view, it is only in the eventuality of the Chief Fire Officer giving his no objection that the issue of any squatting and/or license vending could possibly arise. ln so far as hawkers selling food items are concerned, such persons should not be permitted to hawk unless they have been issued a license by the MCD.
In order to keep a vigil in the area, the Assistant
Commissioner of the area should make frequent periodical visits not less than once in a week. We may commend that atleast some visits ought to be conducted without the attendant paraphernalia or prior notice in order to get a realistic picture so that it can be found out whether there are any unauthorized person squatting or hawking in the area and whether the license holders are going beyond the area earmarked for them. lt may
I t w a
(
2011:DHC:17996-DB.t
!t
>:) also be appropriate for the MCD to consult the local police authorities on aspects of both security and monitoring in this behalf. To achieve this end perhaps installation of CCTV cameras at certain strategic spots could also be explored.
We dispose of the writ petition with the aforesaid directions.
Dasti to the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent under signatures of Court Master.
,o*Joffitffiul,J. o t(q*I*iltL
-J/
AUGUST 11, 2011 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. vg
-Fh*N" rscz? 1,,'lttsr ( rn neautV f
U"crufiot1t'du crrc(r"n e ['t n'o l 'rl) t
A
{^
, \t l-' t\
,a o/o 20.09.20LL
Present: Mr.Vikas Goyal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Mr.Ajay Arora, counsel for the
MCD.
CM No.15827/2011 in
+ WP (C) No.2B53|2OLL x The application has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner for recall of the order dated 11.08.2011. We may notice that the petitioner has been appearing in person throughout including the initial date of
28.04.2010. Thereafter the counsel for the petitioner appeared on
03.05.201-0, the petitioner in person on 11.05.2010, 05.07.201-0, 09.08.201O, 07.09.2010, 08.09.2010 and 17.09.2010. The counsel for the petitioner again put in appearance on 26.10.2010 and 01.12.2010 whereafter the petitioner appeared in person on 25.OI.2011, l-5.02.2OLL, 03.03.2011, 19.05.2011, 05.08.20LI and finally on 11.08.2011 when the writ petition was disposed of.
The petitioner appearing in person was quite vocal in his submissions and his submissions were analyzed. Now, for the counsel for the petitioner to put in appearance and plead to the contrary is not permissible.
Dismissed. ae
SANJAY KISF{AffKAUL, J.
O
\Qivlll'*t^Jv
J-
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 dm
(
2011:DHC:17996-DB.t
!t
>:) also be appropriate for the MCD to consult the local police authorities on aspects of both security and monitoring in this behalf. To achieve this end perhaps installation of CCTV cameras at certain strategic spots could also be explored.
We dispose of the writ petition with the aforesaid directions.
Dasti to the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent under signatures of Court Master.
,o*Joffitffiul,J. o t(q*I*iltL
-J/
AUGUST 11, 2011 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. vg
-Fh*N" rscz? 1,,'lttsr ( rn neautV f
U"crufiot1t'du crrc(r"n e ['t n'o l 'rl) t
A
{^
, \t l-' t\
,a o/o 20.09.20LL
Present: Mr.Vikas Goyal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Mr.Ajay Arora, counsel for the
MCD.
CM No.15827/2011 in
+ WP (C) No.2B53|2OLL x The application has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner for recall of the order dated 11.08.2011. We may notice that the petitioner has been appearing in person throughout including the initial date of
28.04.2010. Thereafter the counsel for the petitioner appeared on
03.05.201-0, the petitioner in person on 11.05.2010, 05.07.201-0, 09.08.201O, 07.09.2010, 08.09.2010 and 17.09.2010. The counsel for the petitioner again put in appearance on 26.10.2010 and 01.12.2010 whereafter the petitioner appeared in person on 25.OI.2011, l-5.02.2OLL, 03.03.2011, 19.05.2011, 05.08.20LI and finally on 11.08.2011 when the writ petition was disposed of.
The petitioner appearing in person was quite vocal in his submissions and his submissions were analyzed. Now, for the counsel for the petitioner to put in appearance and plead to the contrary is not permissible.
Dismissed. ae
SANJAY KISF{AffKAUL, J.
O
\Qivlll'*t^Jv
J-
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 dm
JUDGMENT