Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)10110/2017
MANOJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Sahoo,Adv.
W.P.(C)10110/2017
MANOJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Sahoo,Adv.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 8l ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Kapil Dutt,Adv.for NDMC.
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh,Adv.for R-2.
Through Mr.Kapil Dutt,Adv.for NDMC.
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh,Adv.for R-2.
W.P.(C)10131/2017
SATISH Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Sahoo,Adv.
SATISH Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Sahoo,Adv.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Kapil Dutt,Adv.for NDMC.
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh,Adv.for R-2.
Through Mr.Kapil Dutt,Adv.for NDMC.
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh,Adv.for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
15.11.2017 These are two petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents not to disturb them from squatting at their respective sites.
Petitioners claim to be carrying out their vending activities at(i)comer of
Shop/Building no.36-E,Kamla Nagar,P.S. Roop Nagar,Delhi and(ii)comer of
2017:DHC:8708-DB L Shop/Building no.28-E, Corporation Bank, Kamla Nagar, P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi respectively and are selling readymade garments
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the officials of the respondents are not allowing them to vend. Mr.Kapil Dutt, who enters appearance on an advance copy submits that the petitioners are not a regular vendor,which is disputed by Mr.Sahoo.
Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at this stage, both the petitions may be disposed of, with a direction thatthe petitioners may approach the Town Vending Committee("TVC")as and when it is functional, with all supporting documents and the TVC should be directed to consider the case ofthe petitioners on priority as they are senior squatters. Additionally,in case they are not found vending at their respective sites, that should not be a ground to reject their case.
Learned counsel for the respondents, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petitions, submit that in case the petitioners approach the TVC as and when it becomes functional, they would have no objection ifthe TVC considers their case in accordance with law and based on supporting documents. It is also contended that merely because the petitioners are not found vending at the spot(s), the same would not be a ground alone to reject their case.
Accordingly, with the consent ofthe parties, we dispose ofboth the writ petitions with the following agreed directions:-
(i) The petitioners would approach the TVC, as and when it is constituted and becomes functional, with all the supporting 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 their respective sites when the survey is conducted,that by itself would not be a ground alone to rejecttheir case.
This order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofthe parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe matters.
The writ petitions are disposed ofaccordingly.
CM.No.41324/2017(for stay)in W.P.(C)No.lOl10/2017.
C.M.No.41355/2017(for stay)in W.P.
(O No.10131/2017.
Both the applications stand disposed of in view of the common order passed in the writ petitions.
G.S.SISTANI,J V.KAMESWA^^O,J NOVEMBER 15, 2017
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
15.11.2017 These are two petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents not to disturb them from squatting at their respective sites.
Petitioners claim to be carrying out their vending activities at(i)comer of
Shop/Building no.36-E,Kamla Nagar,P.S. Roop Nagar,Delhi and(ii)comer of
2017:DHC:8708-DB L Shop/Building no.28-E, Corporation Bank, Kamla Nagar, P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi respectively and are selling readymade garments
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the officials of the respondents are not allowing them to vend. Mr.Kapil Dutt, who enters appearance on an advance copy submits that the petitioners are not a regular vendor,which is disputed by Mr.Sahoo.
Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at this stage, both the petitions may be disposed of, with a direction thatthe petitioners may approach the Town Vending Committee("TVC")as and when it is functional, with all supporting documents and the TVC should be directed to consider the case ofthe petitioners on priority as they are senior squatters. Additionally,in case they are not found vending at their respective sites, that should not be a ground to reject their case.
Learned counsel for the respondents, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petitions, submit that in case the petitioners approach the TVC as and when it becomes functional, they would have no objection ifthe TVC considers their case in accordance with law and based on supporting documents. It is also contended that merely because the petitioners are not found vending at the spot(s), the same would not be a ground alone to reject their case.
Accordingly, with the consent ofthe parties, we dispose ofboth the writ petitions with the following agreed directions:-
(i) The petitioners would approach the TVC, as and when it is constituted and becomes functional, with all the supporting 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 their respective sites when the survey is conducted,that by itself would not be a ground alone to rejecttheir case.
This order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofthe parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe matters.
The writ petitions are disposed ofaccordingly.
CM.No.41324/2017(for stay)in W.P.(C)No.lOl10/2017.
C.M.No.41355/2017(for stay)in W.P.
(O No.10131/2017.
Both the applications stand disposed of in view of the common order passed in the writ petitions.
G.S.SISTANI,J V.KAMESWA^^O,J NOVEMBER 15, 2017
W.P.(C)10110/2017 J/J
JUDGMENT