Ramesh Kumar Mishra v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Delhi High Court · 01 Apr 2019 · 2019:DHC:7805-DB
G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh
W.P.(C)3686/2017
2019:DHC:7805-DB
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the Town Vending Committee to consider street vendors' applications fairly, ruling that absence during survey alone cannot justify rejection.

Full Text
Translation output
$-35 to 39 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)3686/2017
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR Respondents
Through: Ms. Puja Kalra and Mr. Mukesh Gupta,Standing Counsels for NDMC.
W.P.(C)3687/2017
NANDU Petitioner Advocate.
VERSUS
Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for R-2 with Mr. Satish Malik,SHO-
W.P.(C)3688/2017
KARAN Petitioner Advocate.
VERSUS
2019:DHC:7805-DB
W.P.(C)3711/2017
RAJMAN YADAV Petitioner Advocate.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
Through: Ms. Puja Kalra and Mi. Mukesh Gupta,Standing Counselsfor NDMC.
Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for R- 2.
W.P.(C)4062/2017
Axi aa/ta-d Petitioner RAM AVTAR AAicUrQ
Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumai Mishia, Advocate.
VERSUS
northDELHIMUNICIPALCORPORATION&
Through- Ms. Puja Kalra and Mr. Mukesh Gupta,Standing CounselsforNDMC.
Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for R- 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE JYOTISINGH 9^
01.04.2019
ORDER

1. These are petitions filed under Article226ofthe Constitution ofIndia by the petitioners. The petitioners claim to be regular street vendors squatting atthe following areas:- Sri. No. Name ofpetitioner Place ofsquatting ]. Ms. Asha Pavement along Sir Ganga Ram Hospital road, along DDA Wall, Rajender Nagar,New Delhi

2. Mr. Nand Pavement along Sir Ganga Ram

3. Mr.Karan Pavement along Sir Ganga Ram

4. Mr.Rajman Yadav Pavement along Sir Ganga Ram

5. Mr.Ram Avtar Pavement abutting DDA Wall, Near Tikona Park, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Road,New Delhi

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Town Vending Committee(TVC)has since been constituted,the petitioners would approach the TVC and, if for any reason, the petitioners are not found squatting,that alone should not be a ground to reject their case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the NDMC, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petitions, submits that should the petitioners make an application with all supporting documents before the TVC, the same would be considered in accordance with law and merely because the petitioners are notfound squatting,thatitselfalone would notbe a ground to reject the case ofthe petitioners.

4. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following agreed directions:

(i) The petitioneis will approach the TVC with all supporting documents;and

(ii) The TVC will consider the case ofthe petitioners in accordance with law and merely because the petitioners are not found vending at the site atthe time ofsurvey,that by itselfwould not be a ground alone to reject their case.

5. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe cases.

6. The writ petitions stand disposed ofin above terms.

7. Dasti. G.S.SISTANI,J JYOTI SINGH,J APRIL 01,2019 ^IK.