Full Text
Translation output
f $-5,6,7,8, 10,26,27&28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)6193/2018& C.M.23908/2018
KRISHNA DEVI AND ORS. Petitioners
W.P.(C)6193/2018& C.M.23908/2018
KRISHNA DEVI AND ORS. Petitioners
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
Respondents
Respondents
W.P.(C)6249/2018& C.M.24124/2018
SATYANARYAN SATH& ORS Petitioners
SATYANARYAN SATH& ORS Petitioners
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION &,ANR ... Respondents
W.P.(C)6264/2018& C.M.24158/2018
PRABHA RANI AND ORS. Petitioners
PRABHA RANI AND ORS. Petitioners
VERSUS
W.P.(C)6274/2018& C.M.24208/2018
HARISH CHAND CHAURASIA Petitioner
HARISH CHAND CHAURASIA Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C)6521/2018 «& C.M.24933/2018
SANJEP^V GUPTA Petitioner
SANJEP^V GUPTA Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C)5036/2018& C.M.I9394/2018
BALIRAJ Petitioner
BALIRAJ Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C)5079/2018& C.M.I9642/2018
SAMSUDHIN AND ORS. Petitioners
SAMSUDHIN AND ORS. Petitioners
VERSUS
W.P.(C)5080/2018& C.M.19657/2018
DARSHNA DEVI Petitioner
DARSHNA DEVI Petitioner
VERSUS
2018:DHC:9241-DB Present: Mr.V.S.Dubey and Mr.Mohd.Faizan,Advocatesforthe petitioners in all the matters.
Ms.Sangeeta Chandra and Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma,Advocates for SDMC in items no.5,7& 8.
Ms.Warisha Farasaj,Advocate for respondentno.2in item no.5.
Mr.Tarveen Singh Nanda,Advocate for respondentno.2in item no.6 with SI Sunita Maan.
Mr.Paritosh Anil,Advocate for SDMC in item no.7.
Mr.Shlok Chandra,Advocate for Delhi Police in item no.7.
Mr.A.K.Sharma,standing counsel for SDMC in item no.10.
Mr.Abhishek Kr.Singh,Advocate for R-2in item no.10
Mr.Rishikesh Kumar,ASC,GNCTD and Mr.PremsagarPal, Advocate in item no.26.
Mr.Tushar Sannu,Advocate for SDMC in item no.28.
Mr.Anjum Javed,ASC,GNCTD with Mr.Devendra Kumar, Mr.Faran Ahmed and Ms.Priti,Advocatesforrespondentno.2in item no.28 with SI Sanjeev Kumar,PS VasantKunj.
Ms.Sangeeta Chandra and Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma,Advocates for SDMC in items no.5,7& 8.
Ms.Warisha Farasaj,Advocate for respondentno.2in item no.5.
Mr.Tarveen Singh Nanda,Advocate for respondentno.2in item no.6 with SI Sunita Maan.
Mr.Paritosh Anil,Advocate for SDMC in item no.7.
Mr.Shlok Chandra,Advocate for Delhi Police in item no.7.
Mr.A.K.Sharma,standing counsel for SDMC in item no.10.
Mr.Abhishek Kr.Singh,Advocate for R-2in item no.10
Mr.Rishikesh Kumar,ASC,GNCTD and Mr.PremsagarPal, Advocate in item no.26.
Mr.Tushar Sannu,Advocate for SDMC in item no.28.
Mr.Anjum Javed,ASC,GNCTD with Mr.Devendra Kumar, Mr.Faran Ahmed and Ms.Priti,Advocatesforrespondentno.2in item no.28 with SI Sanjeev Kumar,PS VasantKunj.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
06.09.2018 The petitioners claim to be the regular street vendors. Fear of dispossession has led to filing of the present writ petitions. Counsel for the petitioners submits that since fresh rules ofDelhi Street Vendors(Protection of
Livelihood and Regulation ofStreet Vending)Rules2017 have been notified on
10.01.2018,the election for the formation ofTown Vending Committee(TVC) has been held on 15.07.2018and the firstTVC is likelyto be constituted shortly, the petitioners would approach the TVC as and when it is functional with all supporting documents. He further seeks a direction to the TVC that merely because the petitioners are not found squatting at the time ofsurvey,that alone should not be a ground to reject their case.
Counsels for the SDMC/respondents, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition,submit 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 not found squatting,that itselfalone would not be a ground to rejecttheir case.
Accordingly, the present petitions are disposed of with the following agreed directions:-
(i) The petitioners would approach the TVC as and when it is constituted with all supporting documents;
(ii) The TVC will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the material placed on record;
(iii) Merely because the petitioners are not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted,that by itselfwould not be a ground alone to reject their case.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and this order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofboth the parties.
In above terms,all the writ petitions stand disposed of.
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
06.09.2018 The petitioners claim to be the regular street vendors. Fear of dispossession has led to filing of the present writ petitions. Counsel for the petitioners submits that since fresh rules ofDelhi Street Vendors(Protection of
Livelihood and Regulation ofStreet Vending)Rules2017 have been notified on
10.01.2018,the election for the formation ofTown Vending Committee(TVC) has been held on 15.07.2018and the firstTVC is likelyto be constituted shortly, the petitioners would approach the TVC as and when it is functional with all supporting documents. He further seeks a direction to the TVC that merely because the petitioners are not found squatting at the time ofsurvey,that alone should not be a ground to reject their case.
Counsels for the SDMC/respondents, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition,submit 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 not found squatting,that itselfalone would not be a ground to rejecttheir case.
Accordingly, the present petitions are disposed of with the following agreed directions:-
(i) The petitioners would approach the TVC as and when it is constituted with all supporting documents;
(ii) The TVC will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the material placed on record;
(iii) Merely because the petitioners are not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted,that by itselfwould not be a ground alone to reject their case.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and this order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofboth the parties.
In above terms,all the writ petitions stand disposed of.
C.M.23908/2018 in W.PTQ 6193/2018
CM.24124/2018 in W.PTQ 6249/2018
C.M.24158/2018 in W.PTQ 6264/2018
C.M.242ft8/2018 in W.P.(C)6274/2018
C.M.242ft8/2018 in W.P.(C)6274/2018
C.M.24933/2018 in W.PTQ 6521/2018
C.M.19394/2018 in W.P.fC)5036/2018
C.M.19642/2018 in W.P.(CI 5079/2018
C.M.19657/2018 in W.PTQ 5080/2018
(stay)
The applications stand disposed of,in view ofthe order passed in the writ petitions.
G.S.SISTANI,J" SANGITAMfNGR^HGAL,J SEPTEMBER 06,2018/rb
(stay)
The applications stand disposed of,in view ofthe order passed in the writ petitions.
G.S.SISTANI,J" SANGITAMfNGR^HGAL,J SEPTEMBER 06,2018/rb
JUDGMENT