HAWKERS JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE v. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Delhi High Court · 22 Jul 2019 · 2019:DHC:7487-DB
Hima Kohli; Asha Menon
W.P.(C)4044/2019
2019:DHC:7487-DB
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court declined to continue monitoring the implementation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, emphasizing that statutory bodies are in place and that reliefs against illegal removals require specific evidence.

Full Text
Translation output
•o
IN
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)4044/2019,C.M.APPL.18273/2019(for stay)
HAWKERSJOINT ACTION COMMITTEE&ORS.....Petitioners
Through : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates, for petitioner.
VERSUS
NORTHDELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION&ORS Respondents
Through:Ms.Mini Pushkama,Standing Counsel with Ms. Shiva Pandey, Ms. Swagata Bhuyan, Advocates,for Nr.DMCin W.P.(C)4044/2019.
Ms.PujaKalra,StandingCounselandMr.Virendra Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.l and 2 in
W.P.(C)4044/2019.
Mr.Hem Kumar,Advocate,forrespondentNo.3.
Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, ASC with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh and Ms.Kriti Sinha,Advocates,for
NDMC.
Mr. Hemant Kumar, LI, Karol Bagh Zone, m
W.P.(C)4044/2019.
AND
W.P.(C) 6622/2015, C.M. APPL.12079/2015 (for direction), 32989/2016(forimpleadment)&33120/2016(forstay)
JANODAYAEKTA SAMITI(REGD.) Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates, for petitioner.
W.P.(C)4044/2019andconnectedmatter ^ 2019:DHC:7487-DB
VERSUS
GOVT.OFNCT OFDELHIAND ORS Respondents
Through:Ms.SukritiGhai,proxy counsel,for Mr. Devesh Singh,ASC(Civil),GNCTD.
Ms.MiniPushkama,Standing Counsel.
Mr.SriHarshaPeechara,ASC with Mr.Mananjay Mishraand Ms.KritiSinha^Advocates,forNDMC.
Ms. Eshita Baruah, for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate,for EDMC.
Mr.Sunny Arora,Advocate,for applicant in C.M.
Appl.32989/2016.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICEHIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE ASHA MENON
0/„ 22.07.2019
ORDER

1. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 6622/2015 seeks direction that impiementation of the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Reguiation ofStreet Vending)Act,2014('the Act')by the localauthoritiesbemonitoredbytheCourttoensurethattheauthoritiesactin accordance with law.

2. Thepresentpetitionwasfiledintheyear2015.Muchwaterhasflown under the bridge ever since. The Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of LivelihoodandReguiationofStreetVending)Rules,2017('theRules')have beennotifiedon 10.01.2018andtheSchemecontemplatedundertheActhas been notified on 15.04.2019. We are informed that the Town Vending Committees(TVCs)of eachofthefourlocalauthorities,i.e.theNorthDelhi,.. Page2of[4] W.P.(C)4044/2019andconnected matter Municipal Corporation (Nr.DMC), East Delhi Municipal Coiporation (EDMC), South Delhi Municipal Corporation(SDMC)and New Delhi MunicipalCouncil(NDMC)arein place.Mr.SriHarshaPeechara,learned counselfortherespondent/NDMCstatesthatthere aretwo vacanciesinthe TVCoftheNDMC,whichshallsoonbefilledinbyconductingabye-election within six weeks.We are informed by learned counsel for the respondents that allthe TVCs are goingto holdtheirfirst meeting inthe month ofJuly 2019 itself. 3: The first requirement under the Act is for the local authorities to prepareaplan,permittingthevocationofstreetvendorsinconsultationwith the planning authority and on the recommendations ofthe TVCs,Till the TVCsmaketherecommendations,thelocalauthoritiescannotprepareaplan to permitvocationofstreetvendorscoveringmatterscontainedintheFirst Schedule.Therefore,priorityoftheTVCsandthelocalauthoritiesmustbeto preparethesaidplan.Contemporaneously,Section3oftheActrequiresthe TVCstoconductasurveyofallexistingstreetvendorswithintheirrespective jurisdictionsonceinfiveyears,inthemannerspecifiedintheScheme.

4. In view ofthe aforesaid Statute,the Rules and the Scheme framed thereunderandthefactthattheTVCsareinplace,itisdeemedappropriateto disposeofthe presentpetitions.Learnedcounselfortherespondentsassure the Courtthatthe local authorities shall adhere to.the Act,Rules and the Scheme.Thereforenoneed isfeltforthisCourttocontinuemonitoringthe implementationoftheActbytheauthorities. Page3of[4] W.P.(C)4044/2019andconnectedmatter

5. Prayer(A)in W.P.(C)4044/2019is materiallythesameastheprayerin W.P.(C)6622/2015 and calls for no separate orders besides those recorded above.

6. Coming next to prayers(B)and(C)in W.P.(C)4044/2019, we have read the order dated 16.04.2019passed by the predecessorBench,wherein it was observed that the writ petitioners have neither given any details ofthe street vendors occupying the areas, nor any specific dates or supporting documents been provided in support oftheir contention thatthey have been illegallyremoved.TheCourtwenttotheextentofobservingthattherecannot be any blanket orders passed,ofthe nature prayed for. We reiterate the said observations while disposing ofthese petitions. No such omnibus prayers as made herein can be entertained.In case ofviolation ofany specific order,the aggrieved party is at liberty to seek its remedies in accordance with law.

7. The writpetitions are disposed ofalong with the pending applications. JULY 22,2019 ajk/rkb HIMA KOHLI,J ASHA MENON,J W.P.(C)4044/2019andconnected matter Page4of[4]