Full Text
Translation output
!
A-35
% 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 for respondents no.2 to 5.
+CONT CAS(C) No.465/2011
*
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 26.5.2011. It is pointed out that tehbazari right of the petitioner has been established and recognized in this order and the petitioner cannot be dispossessed by the respondents; however, on one pretext or the other the petitioner is being unduly harassed.
Unlawful demands are also being made upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that this apprehension of the petitioner is wholly unfounded.
In terms of the aforenoted order dated 26.5.2011 till the time a formal policy has been adopted by the NDMC interim protection has been granted to the petitioner and he has been permitted to operate from his tehbazari site. The only dispute is about the time within which the petitioner is permitted to operate
CONT CAS(C) No.465/2011
":-,i
,:- ~
~
2011:DHC:8445 from this site. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in a
A-35
% 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 for respondents no.2 to 5.
+CONT CAS(C) No.465/2011
*
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 26.5.2011. It is pointed out that tehbazari right of the petitioner has been established and recognized in this order and the petitioner cannot be dispossessed by the respondents; however, on one pretext or the other the petitioner is being unduly harassed.
Unlawful demands are also being made upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that this apprehension of the petitioner is wholly unfounded.
In terms of the aforenoted order dated 26.5.2011 till the time a formal policy has been adopted by the NDMC interim protection has been granted to the petitioner and he has been permitted to operate from his tehbazari site. The only dispute is about the time within which the petitioner is permitted to operate
CONT CAS(C) No.465/2011
":-,i
,:- ~
~
2011:DHC:8445 from this site. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 & Drs. Vs. MCD & Drs. 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 petitioner 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 site will remain open between 8.00 AM to 9.00 PM; the rospondents i.e.
NDMC along with Delhi Police shall not cause any harassment to the petitioner who is permitted to operate from his site in the manner permitted to him in terms of the order of this Court dated 26.5.2011.
Goods if any ceased of the petitioner shall be returned back to the petitioner without penalty. No further orders are called for. Petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the
Petition No.1699/1987 titled Sudhir Madan & Drs. Vs. MCD & Drs. 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 petitioner 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 site will remain open between 8.00 AM to 9.00 PM; the rospondents i.e.
NDMC along with Delhi Police shall not cause any harassment to the petitioner who is permitted to operate from his site in the manner permitted to him in terms of the order of this Court dated 26.5.2011.
Goods if any ceased of the petitioner shall be returned back to the petitioner without penalty. No further orders are called for. Petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the
JULY 061 2011/nandan
CONT CAS(C) No.465/2011
I
INDERMEET ~R'J.
Page 20f2
_~_----..1.
2011:DHC:8445
CONT CAS(C) No.465/2011
I
INDERMEET ~R'J.
Page 20f2
_~_----..1.
2011:DHC:8445