S.B Tripathi v. Dr Punit Kumar Goel & Anr

1. The petitioner seeks fresh directions against the respondents to comply with the directions passed in CONT CAS(C) 677/2018, which was disposed of previously vide order dated 12.09.2018 apart from seeking initiation of action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr.P.C. ”]

2. Having heard the petitioner, who has argued the matter in person through video conferencing and the learned counsel for the respondents as also on perusal of the record, these applications come up for final disposal.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents under Section 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 12.02.2018 passed in LPA[1] NO. 688/2016.

4. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner, who is a resident of Om Apartments, Sector-14, Pocket-2, Phase-II, Dwarka, Delhi, was aggrieved by the act of the respondents in allowing a „Sunday Market‟ to be organized by encroaching upon public land i.e. main road stretching from Om Apartments to Nirmal Bharti School and nearby areas. It was alleged by the petitioner that the weekly Sunday bazaar was being held in connivance with the officials of the MCD[2] and police officials with the sole purpose of illegal monetary gains.

5. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2016 taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 i.e. erstwhile South Delhi Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, a review was filed, which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2016, and thereafter, the matter came before the Division Bench in appeal. The Division Bench, upon analysing the documents on the record in detail and taking into consideration practical as well as ground realities, passed the following directions: Letters Patent Appeal 2 Municipal Corporation of Delhi “9. Both the parties are in agreement that some regulations of the market is required. We had requested all the counsels to give suggestions as to how the working of the weekly market can be streamlined. On the next date of hearing, we had noticed that the suggestions have been compiled. We also noticed on 25.09.2017 that as and when the market is manned by the police officials and representatives of SDMC, the street vendors restrict themselves to the area in question, but in their absence the conditions are not complied with. 10. On 17.11.2017, Ms. Mini Pushkarna had informed us that for the last three Sundays the vendors have been vending in an orderly manner, the appellant had however, submitted to the contrary. On 15.12.2017, we were informed that an additional affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of the SDMC along with photographs. We were also informed that the vendors of the weekly market are not being allowed to squat in front of Om Apartments as well as in front of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Apartments. It was also agreed that the parties would place fresh photographs on record which would be taken on 17.12.2017. On 11.02.2018, a joint inspection was carried out and photographs have again been placed on record. During inspection on 11.02.2018, members of the Resident Welfare Association and Section Officer (Administration of SDMC) were also present.

10. The appellant is still dissatisfied in the manner weekly market is being run. We are of the view that the sufficient material has been placed on record before us which we have noticed in the paragraph aforegoing. Statements have been made which we have also noticed hereinabove and status report/affidavit have been filed to show that every endeavor would be made to ensure that the street vendors carry out their activities in an ordinary manner without causing inconvenience to the residents and without obstructing free flow of traffic and movement of pedestrians. Binding the respondents to the stand taken by them in the affidavit/status report filed in Court, we are of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in this Letters Patent Appeal (in short „LPA‟). The local police and officials of respondent No.1 will ensure that the market is run in orders and organized manner in terms of the affidavit/status report placed on record. 12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.”

6. It appears that since the aforesaid directions were not complied with, the petitioner filed CONT CAS(C) 677/2018 wherein he sought action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 12.02.2018, upon which, the following directions were passed vide order dated 12.09.2018: “Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation is directed to ensure that the vendors are not allowed to display their goods on the road divider and not place their, goods on the footpath, without leaving two meter walkway distance for pedestrians. It is further directed that the road in question must remain open for vehicular movement on the day of the Sunday Weekly Market in Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi. No further orders are called for in the present petition.”

7. It appears that the grievances of the petitioner remain unsatisfied and he was constrained to file the aforesaid applications alleging that the market in question is being continuously held every Sunday in complete defiance of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. It is reiterated that weekly bazaar is being run by the respondent No.2 on the road across Om Apartments, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi stretching to Nirmal Bharti School.

8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the vendors capture almost 6 feet of both sides of the road from the road divider, display their goods on the footpath without even leaving 2 meters‟ walkable distance and the situation is worsened by thele walas/moving vendors who keep on moving freely on the road. He points out that he had written emails which form part of Annexure P-1 to P-18 during the period April, 2018 till August, 2018.

9. The respondent No.1/SDMC in its reply along with the affidavit of Assistant Commissioner, Nazafgarh Zone dated 06.02.2019 has however, refuted the allegations levelled by the petitioner and it is stated that the vendors are not allowed to squat in front of Om Apartments as well as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Apartments. It is also pointed out that a joint inspection of the area was conducted by the Municipal Corporation, local police and members of the RWA[3] and the photographs are placed on the record.

10. However, that is not the end of the story. Subsequently, status reports have been sought by the Court, which have been filed on the record, firstly on 12.01.2021; and then second status report dated 11.11.2021, besides third status report which too was filed a day after i.e., on 12.11.2021.

11. The long and short of the aforesaid status reports reveal that in the first report, it is brought to the fore that the Sunday weekly bazaar is routinely and regularly inspected and regulated by the officials of the Nazafgarh Zone on each Sunday and it is ensured that the vendors squat and carry out their activities in a regulated manner. It is also affirmed that vendors are directed to maintain proper distance amongst themselves and also bear masks all the time and the goods are directed to be displayed in a orderly manner, for which photographs have also been filed. Evidently, the said status reports came to be filed during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

12. The second status report also made similar assertions and the photographs of the weekly bazaar that was organized from 17.01.2021 on every Sunday till 11.04.2021 have been placed on record. It is also reiterated that the Sunday weekly bazaar is now held much far away from the entrance gate of Om Apartments. A rough sketch plan has been filed on the record, which is Annexure-K. It is Residents Welfare Association also deposed in the affidavit that there is no obstruction either to any vehicular traffic or any pedestrian movement. The photographs are placed on the record. Likewise, the third status report was only to the effect that weekly bazaar were not held upon lockdown being imposed from 11.04.2021 till 31.10.2021. Again, it is reiterated that there is no obstruction either to pedestrians or vehicular traffic.

13. Although the petitioner assails the aforesaid status reports, the record bears the testimony to the fact that he has neither cared to file any reply to the aforesaid status reports nor he has lodged any further complaints with the authorities concerned. This Court finds that there are no justifiable grounds to proceed with the present matter any further. The respondents are taking sufficient measures for regulating the weekly bazaar and taking such measures which are within their command.

14. The petitioner cannot traverse beyond what was directed by the Division Bench vide order dated 12.02.2018 or for that matter, later order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CONT CAS(C) 677/2018. In a situation like this, it is very difficult for the Court to monitor day to day activities being carried out at the spot.