Full Text
Translation output
)ip $-27-30 & 36-38 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 12218/2016
PRAVEEN KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Sahoo, Adv.
W.P.(C) 12218/2016
PRAVEEN KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Sahoo, Adv.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. with Mr.Kapil Dutta, Adv. for NDMC.
Mr.Sumit Agarwal, Adv. with Mr.Mukesh Sachdeva, Adv. for R-2.
Through Mr.Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. with Mr.Kapil Dutta, Adv. for NDMC.
Mr.Sumit Agarwal, Adv. with Mr.Mukesh Sachdeva, Adv. for R-2.
W.P.(C) 12228/2016
RAMNIWAS .....Petitioner
RAMNIWAS .....Petitioner
VERSUS
i Through Mr.Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. with Mr.Kapil
W.P.(C) 12234/2016
PREM KUMAR Petitioner
PREM KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ANDANR..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. with Mr.Kapil 2017:DHC:8775-DB
Through Mr.Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. with Mr.Kapil 2017:DHC:8775-DB
W.P.(C) 20/2017 ^ ^ -
SURESH ; ^ Petitioner ^ Tlirough Mr.N.K.Sahoo, Adv.
SURESH ; ^ Petitioner ^ Tlirough Mr.N.K.Sahoo, Adv.
VERSUS
NORTH IDELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR Respoildents
Tlirough . Mr;Ajjay,Aroraa, Adv. withMr.Kapil
. Dutta, Adv. for NDMC.
Tlirough . Mr;Ajjay,Aroraa, Adv. withMr.Kapil
. Dutta, Adv. for NDMC.
W.P.(C) 785/2017
RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN ,.... Petitioner
RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN ,.... Petitioner
VERSUS
, NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ram Kurnar, Adv. for NDMC.
Through Mr.Ram Kurnar, Adv. for NDMC.
W.P.(C) 808/2017 • ' ^
GIMDHARJ LAL .....Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Sahoo, Adv. ;
GIMDHARJ LAL .....Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Sahoo, Adv. ;
VERSUS
, ' NORTHDELHIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.....Respondents
Through Ms.Mansi Gupta, Adv. for NDMC.' .
•+ W.P.(C) 809/2017
RAM KARTAR@KARTAR SINGH .....Petitioner , Through Mr.N.K.Slahoo, Adv.
Through Ms.Mansi Gupta, Adv. for NDMC.' .
•+ W.P.(C) 809/2017
RAM KARTAR@KARTAR SINGH .....Petitioner , Through Mr.N.K.Slahoo, Adv.
VERSUS
Through Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for NDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
, / % 14.09.2017 The abovementioned writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb them from squatting attheir respective sites inKamla Nagar Market.
The petitioners claim to be the squatters and squatting at Kamla Nagar
Market. Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at this stage, all the petitions may be disposed of, with a direction that the 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
I 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.
I,eamed counsels 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 aground alone to reject their case.
Accordingly, with the consent ofthe parties, we dispose of all these writ petitions with the following agreed directions
-X. - (i) The petitioners would approach the TVC, as and when it is
\ constituted and becomes functional, with all the supporting documents;'
(n) The TVC will consider the case ofthe petitioners in accordance with law and expeditiously, after taking into consideration all the material placedon record; . , (iii) Merely because the petitioners are not found vending at their respective sites when the survey is conducted, that by itselfwould notbe a ground alone toreject their 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.
C.M. No.48197/2016 (for stav^ in W.P.YC) No.l221S/2nif;^ '
C.M: No.48276/20i6 (for stav^ in W.P. TC) No.l2228/2nifi^
CM. No.48285/2016 (for stav^ in W.P. (C) No.l2234/2ni^^
C.M. No.141/2017 (for stiav^ in W.P. fC) No.20/2fl17^
G.M. No.3650/2017 (for stavVin W.P. (O No.785/2nT7.
.C.M. N6.3729/2017 (for stayHn W.P. (C) No.808/2ni7
CM. No.3730/2017 (for stavVin W.P. (Q Nn.809/2017
All the appHcations stand disposed of in view of the common order passed inthe writ petitions. '
G.S.SISTANI,J.
SEPTEMBER14,2017/ka GHANDER S
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
, / % 14.09.2017 The abovementioned writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb them from squatting attheir respective sites inKamla Nagar Market.
The petitioners claim to be the squatters and squatting at Kamla Nagar
Market. Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at this stage, all the petitions may be disposed of, with a direction that the 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
I 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.
I,eamed counsels 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 aground alone to reject their case.
Accordingly, with the consent ofthe parties, we dispose of all these writ petitions with the following agreed directions
-X. - (i) The petitioners would approach the TVC, as and when it is
\ constituted and becomes functional, with all the supporting documents;'
(n) The TVC will consider the case ofthe petitioners in accordance with law and expeditiously, after taking into consideration all the material placedon record; . , (iii) Merely because the petitioners are not found vending at their respective sites when the survey is conducted, that by itselfwould notbe a ground alone toreject their 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.
C.M. No.48197/2016 (for stav^ in W.P.YC) No.l221S/2nif;^ '
C.M: No.48276/20i6 (for stav^ in W.P. TC) No.l2228/2nifi^
CM. No.48285/2016 (for stav^ in W.P. (C) No.l2234/2ni^^
C.M. No.141/2017 (for stiav^ in W.P. fC) No.20/2fl17^
G.M. No.3650/2017 (for stavVin W.P. (O No.785/2nT7.
.C.M. N6.3729/2017 (for stayHn W.P. (C) No.808/2ni7
CM. No.3730/2017 (for stavVin W.P. (Q Nn.809/2017
All the appHcations stand disposed of in view of the common order passed inthe writ petitions. '
G.S.SISTANI,J.
SEPTEMBER14,2017/ka GHANDER S
W.P.(C) 12218/2016& Others , '
JUDGMENT