Full Text
Translation output
$-15 to 22 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 3339/2018, CM APPL 13141/2018
BATESH & ORS Petitioners
W.P.(C) 3339/2018, CM APPL 13141/2018
BATESH & ORS Petitioners
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR Respondents
W.P.(C) 3363/2018, CM APPL 13264/2018
PYARA SINGH & ORS Petitioners
PYARA SINGH & ORS Petitioners
VERSUS
NORTH DLEHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR
W.P.(C) 8697/2017
PRAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS Petitioners
PRAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS Petitioners
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
W.P.(C) 8808/2017
PATI LAL AND ORS Petitioner
PATI LAL AND ORS Petitioner
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
W.P.(C) 856/2018, CM APPL 3650/2018
VINOD KUMAR Petitioner
VINOD KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
W.P.(C) 961/2018, CM APPL 4040/2018
PREM SINGH Petitioner
PREM SINGH Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 1108/2018, CM APPL 4607/2018
RAM VATI AND ORS. Petitioners
RAM VATI AND ORS. Petitioners
VERSUS
2018:DHC:8516-DB
W.P.(C) 1110/2018, CM APPL 4654/2018
RAKESH KUMAR RAWAT & ORS
RAKESH KUMAR RAWAT & ORS
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR Petitioners
Present Mr. V.S. Dubey, Advocate for petitioners in all matters.
Mr. Sananaseem with Mr. Naushad AhmedKhan, Advocates for R-
2 in item no. 15.
Ms. Mini Pushkama, Standing Counsel with Ms. Swagata Bhuyan
& Ms. Shiva Pandey, Advocates for R-2 in item no.15.
Mr. Tushar Sannu& Ms. Peehu Singh, Advocates for NorthMCD
& SDMC in items no. 16 & 19.
Ms. JyotiTaneja& Mr. HarshaPeechara, Advocates for SDMC in items no. 17 & 18.
Mr. Amish Dabas, Advocate for R-2 in item no. 17.
Mr. Soumya Tandon, Advocate for R-2 in item no. 18.
Mr. Anjum Javed, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate for R-2 in item no.20.
Mr. Amit Chadha, Advocate for SDMC.
Mr. NaushadAhmedKhan, ASC (Civil), GNCTD for R-2 in item no.21.
Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-1 in item no.21.
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC for GNCTD in item no.22.
Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Advocate for SDMC in item no.22.
S.I. SatishBhati,P.S. Kalkaji.
S.I. Amit Mann, P.S. Defence Colony.
Present Mr. V.S. Dubey, Advocate for petitioners in all matters.
Mr. Sananaseem with Mr. Naushad AhmedKhan, Advocates for R-
2 in item no. 15.
Ms. Mini Pushkama, Standing Counsel with Ms. Swagata Bhuyan
& Ms. Shiva Pandey, Advocates for R-2 in item no.15.
Mr. Tushar Sannu& Ms. Peehu Singh, Advocates for NorthMCD
& SDMC in items no. 16 & 19.
Ms. JyotiTaneja& Mr. HarshaPeechara, Advocates for SDMC in items no. 17 & 18.
Mr. Amish Dabas, Advocate for R-2 in item no. 17.
Mr. Soumya Tandon, Advocate for R-2 in item no. 18.
Mr. Anjum Javed, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate for R-2 in item no.20.
Mr. Amit Chadha, Advocate for SDMC.
Mr. NaushadAhmedKhan, ASC (Civil), GNCTD for R-2 in item no.21.
Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-1 in item no.21.
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC for GNCTD in item no.22.
Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Advocate for SDMC in item no.22.
S.I. SatishBhati,P.S. Kalkaji.
S.I. Amit Mann, P.S. Defence Colony.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
11.07.2018 These petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioners, who claim to be vending at their respective sites at R.K.
Puram, Karol Bagh, Kalkaji, Green Park, E-20, Nature Basket Store, Defence
Colony, GBlock, Peepal Chowk, Khan Pur &New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
Fear ofdispossession has led to the filing ofthe present writ petitions.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the date for conducting elections have been announced for formation of the first Town Vending
Committee(TVC), he would approach the TVC as and when it is functional and, if for any reason, the petitioners are not found squatting, that alone should not be a ground to reject their case.
Counsel for the respondent, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition, 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, that itselfalone would not be aground toreject the case ofthe petitioners.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following agreed directions:
(i) The petitioners will approach the TVC as and when it is functional 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 at the time of survey, that by itself would 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 case.
In above terms, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
:r. r- G.S.SISTANI, J SANGIT^HINGlp. SEHGAL, J
JULY 11,2018 ck
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
11.07.2018 These petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioners, who claim to be vending at their respective sites at R.K.
Puram, Karol Bagh, Kalkaji, Green Park, E-20, Nature Basket Store, Defence
Colony, GBlock, Peepal Chowk, Khan Pur &New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
Fear ofdispossession has led to the filing ofthe present writ petitions.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the date for conducting elections have been announced for formation of the first Town Vending
Committee(TVC), he would approach the TVC as and when it is functional and, if for any reason, the petitioners are not found squatting, that alone should not be a ground to reject their case.
Counsel for the respondent, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition, 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, that itselfalone would not be aground toreject the case ofthe petitioners.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following agreed directions:
(i) The petitioners will approach the TVC as and when it is functional 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 at the time of survey, that by itself would 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 case.
In above terms, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
:r. r- G.S.SISTANI, J SANGIT^HINGlp. SEHGAL, J
JULY 11,2018 ck
JUDGMENT