Full Text
Translation output
I
A-34
%06.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ramesh K.Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the respondent no.l!NDMC.
Mr.Sanjay Sabharwal and Mr.Alok Singh, Advocate f'Jr respondents no.2 to 5.
+CONT CAS(C) No.464/2011
*
Notice.
Counsel for the respondents accept-_,. notice on behalf of the respondents.
By way· of this petition it has been contended that the respondents are guilty of having committed contempt of court of the order dated 25.5.2011. It is pointed out that tehbazari rights of the petitioners have been established and recognized in this order and the petitioners cannot be dispossessed by the respondents; however, on one pretext or the other the petitioners are being unduly harassed.
Unlawful demands are also being made upon the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that this apprehension of the petitioners is wholly unfounded.
In terms of the aforenoted order dated 25.5.2011 till the time a formal policy has been adopted by the NDMC interim protection has been granted to the petitioners and they have been permitted to operate from their respective tehbazari sites. The only dispute is about the time within which the petitioners are permitted to operate
CONT CAS(C) No.464/2011
2011:DHC:8440 from these sites. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in a
A-34
%06.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ramesh K.Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the respondent no.l!NDMC.
Mr.Sanjay Sabharwal and Mr.Alok Singh, Advocate f'Jr respondents no.2 to 5.
+CONT CAS(C) No.464/2011
*
Notice.
Counsel for the respondents accept-_,. notice on behalf of the respondents.
By way· of this petition it has been contended that the respondents are guilty of having committed contempt of court of the order dated 25.5.2011. It is pointed out that tehbazari rights of the petitioners have been established and recognized in this order and the petitioners cannot be dispossessed by the respondents; however, on one pretext or the other the petitioners are being unduly harassed.
Unlawful demands are also being made upon the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that this apprehension of the petitioners is wholly unfounded.
In terms of the aforenoted order dated 25.5.2011 till the time a formal policy has been adopted by the NDMC interim protection has been granted to the petitioners and they have been permitted to operate from their respective tehbazari sites. The only dispute is about the time within which the petitioners are permitted to operate
CONT CAS(C) No.464/2011
2011:DHC:8440 from these sites. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in a
JUDGMENT
of the Supreme Court delivered on 17.5.2007 in
Writ Petition No.1699/1987 titled Sudhir Madan & Ors. Vs. MCD &
Ors. in the case of MCD the time had been fixed for the operation of the tehbazari/vending sites between 8.00 AM to 9.00 PM. In the first instance the counsel for respondent no.3 had an apprehension that there would be a security problem as the period up to 9.00 PM is on the longer side; however it is not in dispute that the NDMC area which is the area of the petitioners in dispute is a well lit area. It is also not in dispute that under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 the shopkeepers at their option are permitted to keep their shops open up to 11.00 PM.
It is accordingly directed that the tehbazari/vending sites will remain open between 8.00 AM to 9.00 PM; the respondents i.e.
NDMC along with Delhi Police shall not cause any harassment to the petitioners who are permitted to operate from their respective sites in the manner permitted to them in terms of the order of this Court dated 25.5.2011. Goods if any ceased of the petitioners shall be returned back to the petitioners without penalty. No further orders are called for. Petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the ignature of the
Writ Petition No.1699/1987 titled Sudhir Madan & Ors. Vs. MCD &
Ors. in the case of MCD the time had been fixed for the operation of the tehbazari/vending sites between 8.00 AM to 9.00 PM. In the first instance the counsel for respondent no.3 had an apprehension that there would be a security problem as the period up to 9.00 PM is on the longer side; however it is not in dispute that the NDMC area which is the area of the petitioners in dispute is a well lit area. It is also not in dispute that under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 the shopkeepers at their option are permitted to keep their shops open up to 11.00 PM.
It is accordingly directed that the tehbazari/vending sites will remain open between 8.00 AM to 9.00 PM; the respondents i.e.
NDMC along with Delhi Police shall not cause any harassment to the petitioners who are permitted to operate from their respective sites in the manner permitted to them in terms of the order of this Court dated 25.5.2011. Goods if any ceased of the petitioners shall be returned back to the petitioners without penalty. No further orders are called for. Petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the ignature of the
JULY 06, 2011
CONT CAS(C) No.464/2011
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Page 2 of2
2011:DHC:8440
CONT CAS(C) No.464/2011
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Page 2 of2
2011:DHC:8440