Full Text
Translation output
s HIGH COURT OF DELHI ^^.P.(C) 2530/2017 SHRI BEJNATH ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharmender Sharma, Advocate with
Ms.Monika Singh, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Dharmender Sharma, Advocate with
Ms.Monika Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (NDMC) & ORS....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sri Harsha Peechara, ASC with Mr.Mananjay Kumar Mishra and Ms.Vidhi Jain, Advocates for NDMC.
Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advocate for R-3.
Through: Mr.Sri Harsha Peechara, ASC with Mr.Mananjay Kumar Mishra and Ms.Vidhi Jain, Advocates for NDMC.
Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
28.04.2017 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a street vendor; claims that he is in the list of 628 street vendors prepared by the NDMC; claims that he has been regularly squatting from Connaught Place opposite Shop No. -—(Nil) and
(Nil). The counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner prays that an alternate site may be allotted to him as he has been removed from the area from where he was squatting. Mr. Harsha Peechara, learned standing counsel for NDMC, submits that no doubt that name of the petitioner finds mentioned in the list of 628 street vendors but the petitioner has not been vending for the past many years. The site from where he is vending is also not established. Even the petitioner has left the
Block NO. 2017:DHC:8159-DB vending site blank in the memo of parties. It was left blank in the representation dated 15.09.2016 submitted to the NDMC and the challans placed on record also prima facie do not establish the place of vending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner will make an application to the NDMC and seek an alternate site.
Learned counsel for NDMC submits that in case such an application is made, the respondent would consider the case ofthe petitioner having regard to certain norms of the NDMC after ascertaining as to whether the petitioner has been continuously squatting or not. Additionally Mr. Sharma submits that as and when Town Vending Committee is constituted the case of the petitioner should be considered by the Town Vending Committee unaffected by the fact as to whether the petitioner is found squatting at the site in question or not.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the stand of the parties, we dispose of the writ petition. In case, the petitioner makes a request to the NDMC, the same would be considered by the NDMC after being satisfied with respect to the documents and as to whether the petitioner is a regular squatter or not. As and when
Town Vending Committee is constituted, it would consider the case of the petitioner having regard to the documents. Merely because the petitioner is not found vending at the site by itself would not be a ground alone to reject the case ofthe petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit t
/
♦ ofthe case.
CM No. 10902/2017 No orders are called for in view of the order passed in the writ petition. Application is disposed of accordingly.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
APRIL 28, 2017 / \
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
28.04.2017 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a street vendor; claims that he is in the list of 628 street vendors prepared by the NDMC; claims that he has been regularly squatting from Connaught Place opposite Shop No. -—(Nil) and
(Nil). The counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner prays that an alternate site may be allotted to him as he has been removed from the area from where he was squatting. Mr. Harsha Peechara, learned standing counsel for NDMC, submits that no doubt that name of the petitioner finds mentioned in the list of 628 street vendors but the petitioner has not been vending for the past many years. The site from where he is vending is also not established. Even the petitioner has left the
Block NO. 2017:DHC:8159-DB vending site blank in the memo of parties. It was left blank in the representation dated 15.09.2016 submitted to the NDMC and the challans placed on record also prima facie do not establish the place of vending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner will make an application to the NDMC and seek an alternate site.
Learned counsel for NDMC submits that in case such an application is made, the respondent would consider the case ofthe petitioner having regard to certain norms of the NDMC after ascertaining as to whether the petitioner has been continuously squatting or not. Additionally Mr. Sharma submits that as and when Town Vending Committee is constituted the case of the petitioner should be considered by the Town Vending Committee unaffected by the fact as to whether the petitioner is found squatting at the site in question or not.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the stand of the parties, we dispose of the writ petition. In case, the petitioner makes a request to the NDMC, the same would be considered by the NDMC after being satisfied with respect to the documents and as to whether the petitioner is a regular squatter or not. As and when
Town Vending Committee is constituted, it would consider the case of the petitioner having regard to the documents. Merely because the petitioner is not found vending at the site by itself would not be a ground alone to reject the case ofthe petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit t
/
♦ ofthe case.
CM No. 10902/2017 No orders are called for in view of the order passed in the writ petition. Application is disposed of accordingly.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
APRIL 28, 2017 / \
JUDGMENT