Full Text
Translation output
IS4 I $-31,32,33 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 329/2018
SUBHASH Petitioner
Through Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Advocate
W.P.(C) 329/2018
SUBHASH Petitioner
Through Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Advocate
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
Respondents
Through Mr. Brijesh Singhal,Advocate for respondent no. 1.
Ms. Neelam Kholiya, Advocate for Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC GNCTD.
Respondents
Through Mr. Brijesh Singhal,Advocate for respondent no. 1.
Ms. Neelam Kholiya, Advocate for Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC GNCTD.
W.P.(C) 330/2018
SHYAM SUNDER Petitioner
SHYAM SUNDER Petitioner
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH COMMISSIONER Respondent
Through Mr. Brijesh Singhal,Advocate for Ms. Neelam Khohya, Advocate for Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC GNCTD.
Through Mr. Brijesh Singhal,Advocate for Ms. Neelam Khohya, Advocate for Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC GNCTD.
W.P.(C) 334/2018
MANISH Petitioner
MANISH Petitioner
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH COMMISSIONER Respondent
Through Mr. Brijesh Singhal, Advocate for Mr. Shashank Shekhar Tiwari, Advocate for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC
GNCTD.
Through Mr. Brijesh Singhal, Advocate for Mr. Shashank Shekhar Tiwari, Advocate for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 2018:DHC:8794-DB
V
12.01.2018 These three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners. The petitioner in W.P.(C). 329/2018 claims to be a regular street vendor vending at near Shop/Building no.8-G, Logba, Near Spark
Mall, Bada Gol Chakar, Kamla Nagar, P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 330/2018 and W.P.(C) 334/2018 claim to be a regular street vendors and both vending at near Shop/Building no.7-G, Near Spark Mall, Neeraj
Comer, Kamla Nagar, P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi. The grievance of the petitioners is against the respondent no.2, i.e., SHO, P.S. Room Nagar, Delhi.
Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are peacefully squatting, however, they are being harassed by the local police.
Mr. Sahoo relies on two circulars annexed to the writ petitions dated 07.09.2016 issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and circular dated 25.02.2014 issued by the Deputy Commission of Police(Head Quarters), Delhi. Based on the circulars, Mr. Sahoo contends that being regular vendors, their possession should not be disturbed.
Counsels for the respondents enter appearance on an advance copy.
Counsel for respondent no.l submits that in the entire writ petition, there is no grievance against the Municipal Corporation.
Mr. Sahoo, at this stage, submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the petitioners are allowed to approach the Town Vending Committee (TVC) as and when it becomes functional and merely because they may not be found vending at the spot at the time of survey, that should not a ground to reject their case.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petitions, submits that should the petitioners make an application with supporting documents before the TVC, the w same would be considered in accordance with law and merely because the petitioners are not found squatting, that itself alone would not be a ground to rejectthe case ofthe petitioners.
In view ofthe stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present writ petitions are disposed ofwith the following agreed directions:-
(i) The petitioners would approach the TVC as and when it is constituted with allthesupporting documents;
(ii) The TVC will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and expeditiously 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 itself would not be a ground alone to reject their case.
(iv) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe matter and this order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofboth the parties. All the rights of the parties arekeptopen.
Thewritpetitions are disposed of CM.APPL 1386/2018fstav^ in W.P.rO 329/201S
CM.APPL 1387/2018rstav) in W.P.fO 330/2018
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 2018:DHC:8794-DB
V
12.01.2018 These three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners. The petitioner in W.P.(C). 329/2018 claims to be a regular street vendor vending at near Shop/Building no.8-G, Logba, Near Spark
Mall, Bada Gol Chakar, Kamla Nagar, P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 330/2018 and W.P.(C) 334/2018 claim to be a regular street vendors and both vending at near Shop/Building no.7-G, Near Spark Mall, Neeraj
Comer, Kamla Nagar, P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi. The grievance of the petitioners is against the respondent no.2, i.e., SHO, P.S. Room Nagar, Delhi.
Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are peacefully squatting, however, they are being harassed by the local police.
Mr. Sahoo relies on two circulars annexed to the writ petitions dated 07.09.2016 issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and circular dated 25.02.2014 issued by the Deputy Commission of Police(Head Quarters), Delhi. Based on the circulars, Mr. Sahoo contends that being regular vendors, their possession should not be disturbed.
Counsels for the respondents enter appearance on an advance copy.
Counsel for respondent no.l submits that in the entire writ petition, there is no grievance against the Municipal Corporation.
Mr. Sahoo, at this stage, submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the petitioners are allowed to approach the Town Vending Committee (TVC) as and when it becomes functional and merely because they may not be found vending at the spot at the time of survey, that should not a ground to reject their case.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petitions, submits that should the petitioners make an application with supporting documents before the TVC, the w same would be considered in accordance with law and merely because the petitioners are not found squatting, that itself alone would not be a ground to rejectthe case ofthe petitioners.
In view ofthe stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present writ petitions are disposed ofwith the following agreed directions:-
(i) The petitioners would approach the TVC as and when it is constituted with allthesupporting documents;
(ii) The TVC will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and expeditiously 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 itself would not be a ground alone to reject their case.
(iv) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe matter and this order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofboth the parties. All the rights of the parties arekeptopen.
Thewritpetitions are disposed of CM.APPL 1386/2018fstav^ in W.P.rO 329/201S
CM.APPL 1387/2018rstav) in W.P.fO 330/2018
CM.APPL 1401/2018(stav) in W.P.rO 334/2018
The applications are disposed ofin view ofthe order passed in the writ petitions.
Dasti to the parties. ^ G.S.SISTANI, J SANGMDHI J&RA SEHGAL, J
JANUARY 12, 2018 fV.P.(C) 329/2018 etc.
The applications are disposed ofin view ofthe order passed in the writ petitions.
Dasti to the parties. ^ G.S.SISTANI, J SANGMDHI J&RA SEHGAL, J
JANUARY 12, 2018 fV.P.(C) 329/2018 etc.
JUDGMENT