Keshaw Sanyasi Gawo Shewasharam v. Government of NCT, New Delhi and Anr.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The case of the Petitioner- Keshaw Sanyasi Gawo Shewasharam is that it is a registered trust and is running a cow shelter and mandir at Bhairon Marg. The challenge of the Petitioner in the instant petition is to the impugned notice of eviction bearing no. S23 (ROAD)/S.B.A. MANDAL M- 321/166 dated 28th January, 2023 issued by the Public Welfare Department which reads as under: “All you slum dwellers Bhairo Marg, Opposite Gate No.1, Pragati Maidan are informed to voluntarily demolish your slum within 15 days of information phase, otherwise, your slum will be removed with the help of police and Will be sent to the shelter home (Dwarka, Geeta Colony) identified by the Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board (DUSIB), in which the maximum period of stay will be 03 months.”

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is involved in taking care and looking after old, ailing, and abandoned cows in a Gaushala. The Gaushala of the Petitioner is situated upon the land in respect of which the impugned notice dated 28th January, 2023 has been issued by Respondent No.2.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said Gaushala has been existing on the said land for the past 15 years. The Petitioner has electricity connection installed, and the Aadhaar card of the Chairperson of the Petitioner has been issued in respect of the said premises only.

5. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned notice has been issued without any show cause notice or providing any hearing to the Petitioner.

6. Ld. counsel for the Respondents, including ld. Counsel for DUSIB, have entered appearance. Mr. Chauhan, ld. Counsel for the DUSIB, upon a specific query from the Court as to whether the JJ cluster at Bhairon Marg is a notified cluster under the Policy or not, states that the Petitioner’s jhuggi cluster does not belong to notified clusters, which are 675 and 82 in number.

7. Mr. Chauhan, ld. Counsel, also relies upon the recent order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 1386/2023 titled Kash Ram v. Public Works Department, GNCTD where the Court had directed demolition of jhuggis in the Dhaula Kuan area, subject to certain conditions.

8. Heard. It is now the settled position in law that until and unless the jhuggi clusters are duly notified, stay on demolition would not be feasible.

9. This position of law has recently been reiterated by this Court in Shakarpur Slum Union v. DDA, [W.P.(C) 6779/2021, decision dated 2nd August, 2022,] wherein the Court held as under:

10. In view of the fact that the impugned eviction notice itself identifies the alternative accommodation which is to be given to the Petitioner i.e., shelter home in Dwarka, Geeta Colony, it is directed that the reliefs sought by the Petitioner would not be liable to be granted.

11. However, considering that there are some cows which are in the premises of the Petitioner, an alternate shelter home for the cows shall also be provided by the Respondents within a week. Thereafter, the Respondent authorities will give the Petitioner a period of one week for moving to the shelter home.

12. It would be the responsibility of the Respondent authorities to ensure that the basic amenities at the relocated shelter home are duly made available for the Petitioner.

13. It is further clarified that the condition of maximum period of stay of three months shall not be applicable to the cows, which are to be moved to the alternate cow shelter.