Susheela Devi v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

1. The petitioners seek directions to the respondent Nos. 1 &2/SDMC to permitthem to continue squatting at sites at Vikram Vihar,opposite Vikram Hotel and Lajpat Bhawan, on the footpath leading to L.S.R. College, New Delhi.

2. Ms. Chandra,learned counsel for the respondents states that the reply affidavits are ready. The same are taken on record. Copies thereof are handed over to the leamed counselfor the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC states that a petition(W.P.(C)6459/19)asking for similar relieffiled by Sh.Prem Singh, who was also squatting at the same site, was disposed-ofon 31.05.2019. A copy of the said order has been enclosed with the reply affidavits handed over bythe respondent Nos. 1 &2/SDMC and marked as Annexure-A.In W.F.(C)4277/2019, W.P.(C)4282/2019 &W.P.(C)4445/2019 page2of[5] 1the said order, the submission made by leamed eounsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC was recorded to the effect that removal action of the petitioner therein had been taken by the SDMC on the directions of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court. It is submitted before us that same is the position in respect ofthe petitioners herein. They have also been removed on the directions of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court.In all, 12 tehbazari holders were removed from the site in view ofthe directions given by the Monitoring Committee and none ofthem have been relocated so far. o ■.J 4. The reason for their non-relocation offered by leamed counsel for the r' respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC is that some sites were identified and communicated to the respondent No.3/Delhi Police in terms ofa letter dated 02.05.2019(Annexure-F colly), but the same were notfound to be feasible by the Delhi Police. A fresh joint meeting was conducted by the officers of the SDMC and the Delhi Police only yesterday.Itis stated that a letter dated 16.07.2019 had been addressed by the respondent Nos. 1 «&: 2/SDMC to the DCP Traffic, South District, New Delhi stating inter alia that the Department had identified two altemate sites (i) along with the wall of Nehm Place Bus Terminal in front ofFire Station on Service Road and (ii) along the wall ofESI Hospital, Okhla Phase-I, but a NOC in respect ofthe said sites is still awaited from the Delhi Police.

5. Leamed counsel for the respondent No.3/Delhi Police states that they shall respond to said letter issued by the SDMC within two weeks and in casethe sites in question arefound to be in order,aNOC shall be issued W.P.(C)4277/2019, W.P.(C)4282/2019 & W.P.(C)4445/2019 page3of[5] A > V vjwithin the same timeline.

6. In view of the submissions made here-in-above, the following directions are issued:-

(i) The respondent No. 3/Delhi Police shall inspect the sites identified bythe respondent Nos. 1 &2/SDMC and conveyed to them vide letter dated 16.07.2019,within one week from today.

(ii) Ifthe aforesaid sites are found to be in order/hen a NOC shall be issued by the Delhi Police to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC within one week from the date ofconducting the site inspection.

(iii) Immediately on receiving the NOC in respect of the aforesaid sites in question, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC shall communicate the same to the petitioners herein,along with the site plan.

(iv) In the event,the sites proposed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC in the letter dated 16.07.2019 are turned down by the Delhi Police for any reason,then a fresh Joint Meeting shall be conducted by the SDMC and the Delhi Police within two weeks from the date ofrejection and the proposed alternate sites shall be identified for issuance of a NOC, to enable the petitioners to be relocated there atthe earliest. W.P.(C)4277/2019, W.R(C)4282/2019 & W.P.(C)4445/2019 page4of[5]

7. The petitions are disposed ofalong with the pending applications. HIMA KOHLI,J JULY 18,2019/MK ASHA MENON,J