Full Text
DateofJudgment: 05^^ May, 2017 OMPAL & ORS. Petitioners.
Through; Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Vishal Kalra, Advocate.
• ^W Jig&ilh S^gar, Advocate for R-1
|^0^-3/EDMCl,c/\
• -^wsMJfe^^Saniov -•^•••Ghosi gDRS Respondents
I
GTB
G.S.SISTANL J.
JUDGMENT
1. Threepetitioners have filed the'present writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the sites at which they are vending at present i.e. Footpath, GTB Hospital. The details of the sites where the petitioners were initially vending is detailed as under: - Petitioner No. Name Date of Final Allotment Site ofAllotment
1. Ompal 22.02.2010 (Site No. 10), Rajiv Gandhi W.P. (C) 3773/2017 Page 1 of[3] 2017:DHC:8149-DB ( \
4. Super Speciality Footpath.
2. Babloo 16.03.2010 Tehbazari Site No. 15, measuring 6 x 4 at Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Foot Path.
3. Jasmant Singh 16.03.2010 Site No. 12, measuring 6 x 4 at Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Foot Path. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequently all the three petitioners have been vending at the footpath of GTB Hospital. Fearing threatof dispossession at the hands of the respondents has led them to knock the doors_^^this::eoaEfc.^^justice. Learned counsel for the respondents apg|^ancfeon anadvance copy on ^ip j ^'Tie tObJ^e'Hnstructions in the Mr.Sagar^tleamed counset||^^^^spondents Nov[2] ^d 3, submits that the ^ars ofthe petitioii^gafilmfbunded and misplaced for the ^ •• • • f reason that the responil|ys|»2 3 havfe addressed. 'A. // communications 21(013^20,Mfand^O[1].12.20is respectively clearly infofiq9^1>^§|[6^#^^^LU c6ne,eme'd'police officials not to take action agaihst:thecpetitrpners'dt^^^ business near GTB Hospital, Gate No.7 diitei4ide^ffl= cfejSLtion^of Vending/Haw zone by the Town Vending Committee. Learned counsel submits that the respondents No.2 & 3 would stand by this decision. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As noted hereinabove fearing dispossession at the hands of the respondents No.2 and 3 has led to the filing of the present writ petition. In the almost identical communications addressed to the SHO/Police Station GTB Enclave dated 22.05.2015 and 01.12.2015, the MCD has W.P. (C) 3773/2017 Page 2 of[3] yi y '0 ! i requested the Police Station not to take action against the petitioners in separate letters, copies of which have been placed on record. The operative part of the letter in the case ofpetitioner No.l Om Pal reads as under: - "You are therefore requested to direct all the concern Police Officials not to take action against Sh. Ompal S/o Sh. Raghuraj, operating his business at near GTB Hospital Gate No.-7, outer side till creation of Vending/Hawking, zone by the Town Vending Committee."
6. Since the respondents no. 2 and 3 have reiterated their stand in Court
7. today, the counsel for the pefitfeiTeT submifssthat no further orders are required to be,^'assed.^xcept that^^^^ respondents^o. 2 and 3 should • u remain bound bMhe sta^^^tafceIfby^t|lem in the^safd letters. Accordinglydispose 0|thi^-~)^it/petition binSfn^ t|e respondents no. 2and^ to the stand the courttoday|ndthe letters dated22.l[5].2015and01.12]y|i|tl ^ A aw ' Cv '.>T ' CMNo.l6592/2dl[7] 8..W.' ^ r:} I*"- tVr'.v'''^-\ • 1^' In view oftl.e above order,'the application is dispose(^Df '•IX "-v., -.A- MAY 05,2017 ''sk" W.P. (C) 3773/2017 ^'X. G. S. SISTANI,J. VINODGOEL, J. Page 3 of[3]