Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th June, 2022
RAVINDER KUL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharmender Sharma and Mr. Bharat Aggarwal, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Addl.
Standing Counsel for R-1.
Mr. Arun Panwar, Advocate for R-2.
PANKAJ PANDEY ..... Petitioner
GULSHAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
SURENDER KHURANA ..... Petitioner
ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
SUBHASH CHAND ..... Petitioner
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 9523/2022, W.P.(C) 9524/2022, W.P.(C) 9525/2022, W.P.(C) 9526/2022, W.P.(C) 9527/2022 and W.P.(C) 9547/2022
3. Present petitions raise common questions of law and are being decided by a common order.
4. These writ petitions have been filed seeking directions to Respondents No. 1 and 2 to allow the Petitioners to operate at their respective vending sites, the details of which have been mentioned in the writ petitions, till the final decision of the Town Vending Committee (‘TVC’), after completion of the survey.
5. As per the case set out in the writ petitions, Petitioners are stated to be vending at their respective sites for the last several years and had applied under the Urban Street Vendor Scheme, 2007 for Tehbazari and claim to be part of the eligibility list of 628 vendors.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioners that in the year 2018, a survey was conducted by the TVC at the present vending sites and the Petitioners were issued acknowledgement slips recognizing their presence. As per Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, no street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under Section 3(1) has been completed and certificate of vending is issued to all the street vendors. However, contrary thereto, Respondents are illegally and arbitrarily removing the Petitioners from their vending sites, leaving no option to the Petitioners but to approach this Court. In a similar matter bearing W.P.(C) No. 9289/2022, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03.06.2022, has given a direction to the Respondents to allow the vendor therein to continue at his current vending site.
7. Mr. Peechara, learned Additional Standing counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1/NDMC, while denying the averments and allegations made in the writ petitions, submits that the Petitioners have approached this Court without even making a representation to Respondent No.1.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at this stage, submits that representation(s) shall be made to Respondent No.1 raising their grievances within a period of one week from today and further prays that directions be issued to Respondent No.1 to decide the same expeditiously considering the nature of relief sought.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioners to make representation(s) to NDMC, within a period of one week from today.
10. The representation(s) shall be decided by NDMC within a period of two weeks from the date of their receipt.
11. Needless to state that the representation(s) will be decided in accordance with law and policies in question and a detailed and speaking order shall be passed thereon.
12. In case the Petitioners are aggrieved by the order(s) so passed, they will be at liberty to resort to appropriate remedies, available to them, in accordance with law.
JYOTI SINGH, J (VACATION JUDGE)
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 17, 2022