Full Text
#S-53 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Baniwal, Ms. Manisha Baniwal and Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel along with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for R-1/MCD.
Ms. Nitika Bhutani, Advocate for R-2 & R-3/GNCTD.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been instituted on behalf of the petitioner, praying as follows:- “In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
I. Pass an order directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioners operation of vending/ hawking unit at Central Zone, Ward - S - 60 of the petitioners in reference/ compliance of the Certificates of Vending (COV) issued by the respondents;
II. Pass any such directions or order that this
2. Issue notice.
3. Ms. Puja Kalra, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1/MCD and Ms. Nitika Bhutani, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/GNCTD.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the MCD, has invited our attention to the terms and conditions, permitting the petitioner to vend.
5. For the sake of completeness, the said terms and conditions attached to the Certificate of Vending, are reproduced herein below:-
6. In terms of the Certificate of Vending issued to the petitioner, it is clearly stipulated that she cannot vend from any particular location, contrary to the express terms of Clause no. ‘11’, of the said Certificate of Vending. It is further observed that since the Town Vending Committee (TVC) is yet to fix a time limit, providing for a period, during which a vendor can vend from any particular spot, the stipulation of 30 minutes time, contained in the said clause, is binding on the petitioner, at this stage.
7. It is an admitted position that the Town Vending Committee (TVC), has in terms of the directions issued by this Court, from time to time, as well as, in terms of the mandate of Section 3 (Survey of street vendors and protection from eviction on relocation) and Section 4 (Issue of certificate of vending) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, carried out a survey, in some of the areas under the MCD zones; pursuant to which, Ms. Geeta Kumari has been issued a certificate of vending dated 06.11.2021, URI: 7628275, which is annexed as Annexure P-2, to the present writ petition.
8. In view of the foregoing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, seeks a solitary relief in the present writ petition, i.e. a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to permit Ms. Geeta Kumari to continue to vend within Central Zone, Ward-S-60, strictly and scrupulously in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said certificate of vending, particularly Clause no. 11, and in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is partly allowed; and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to permit Ms. Geeta Kumari to vend within Central Zone, Ward-S-60, subject to the terms and conditions of the said certificate of vending dated 06.11.2021, without any let or hindrance.
10. Needless to state that the petitioner will be at liberty to articulate any difficulties faced by her, before the appropriate authorities, in accordance with law, in relation to the certificate of vending, insofar as it employs the expression „Others‟.
11. No further directions are prayed for.
12. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
13. A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)
TALWANT SINGH (JUDGE) MAY 30, 2023 Click here to check corrigendum, if any