Full Text
Translation output
$-3 &4 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)197/2019,CM APPL 966/2019
MANISH KUMAR Petitioner
W.P.(C)197/2019,CM APPL 966/2019
MANISH KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL& ANR Respondents
W.P.(C)214/2019,CM APPL 1006/2019
SANJAY KUMAR Petitioner
SANJAY KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR Respondents
Present: Mr.N.K.Sahoo,Advocate for petitioner in both items.
Mr.Sri Harsha Peechara,ASC for R-l/NDMC in item no.3.
Mr.Shavej Khan,Mr.Manoranjan Kumar& Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocates for R-2 in item no.3.
Ms.Jyoti Taneja,Standing Counselfor R-1/North DMC.
Present: Mr.N.K.Sahoo,Advocate for petitioner in both items.
Mr.Sri Harsha Peechara,ASC for R-l/NDMC in item no.3.
Mr.Shavej Khan,Mr.Manoranjan Kumar& Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocates for R-2 in item no.3.
Ms.Jyoti Taneja,Standing Counselfor R-1/North DMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE JYOTISINGH
07.02.2019 These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 ofthe
Constitution of India. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 197/2019 claims to be a regular street vendor squatting in front of Shop no.91, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi while petitioner in W.P.(C)214/2019 claims to be a regular street vendor squatting in front of Shop no.D-30, Shake Lovers, Kamala Nagar, Bhatia
Chowk,Chhota Gol Chakkar,P.S.Roop Nagar,Delhi. Mr.N.K.Sahoo,counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time ofsurvey,the case ofthe petitioners should also be considered alongwith existing squatters since they were not the applicants in the year 2007 nor their names find mentioned in the list of628 street vendors prepared by the NDMC.
Mr.Sahoo,learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the
2019:DHC:7902-DB "A u Town Vending Committee(TVC)has since been constituted, the petitioners would approach the TVC with all supporting documents and,iffor any reason, the petitioners are not found squatting, that alone should not be a ground to reject their case.
Learned counsels appearing forthe respondents,without admitting any of the averments made in the writpetitions,submitthatshould 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 not found squatting,that itselfalone would not be a ground to reject the case ofthe petitioners.
Accordingly,the writ petitions are disposed ofwith the following agreed directions:
(i) The petitioners will approach the TVC with all supporting documents;and
(ii) The TVC will consider the case of the 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 rejecttheir case.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. .
Both these writ petitions stand disposed ofin above terms.
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE JYOTISINGH
07.02.2019 These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 ofthe
Constitution of India. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 197/2019 claims to be a regular street vendor squatting in front of Shop no.91, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi while petitioner in W.P.(C)214/2019 claims to be a regular street vendor squatting in front of Shop no.D-30, Shake Lovers, Kamala Nagar, Bhatia
Chowk,Chhota Gol Chakkar,P.S.Roop Nagar,Delhi. Mr.N.K.Sahoo,counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time ofsurvey,the case ofthe petitioners should also be considered alongwith existing squatters since they were not the applicants in the year 2007 nor their names find mentioned in the list of628 street vendors prepared by the NDMC.
Mr.Sahoo,learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the
2019:DHC:7902-DB "A u Town Vending Committee(TVC)has since been constituted, the petitioners would approach the TVC with all supporting documents and,iffor any reason, the petitioners are not found squatting, that alone should not be a ground to reject their case.
Learned counsels appearing forthe respondents,without admitting any of the averments made in the writpetitions,submitthatshould 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 not found squatting,that itselfalone would not be a ground to reject the case ofthe petitioners.
Accordingly,the writ petitions are disposed ofwith the following agreed directions:
(i) The petitioners will approach the TVC with all supporting documents;and
(ii) The TVC will consider the case of the 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 rejecttheir case.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. .
Both these writ petitions stand disposed ofin above terms.
CM APPL 966/2019 in W.P.(C) 197/2019 and CM APPL 1006/2019 in
W.P.(C)214/2019 also stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI,J X JYOTISINGH,J FEBRUARY 07,2019/ck
G.S.SISTANI,J X JYOTISINGH,J FEBRUARY 07,2019/ck
W.P.(C)197/2019& Anr.
2019:DHC:7902-DB
2019:DHC:7902-DB
JUDGMENT