Full Text
Translation output
$-22924, 25, 26 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9259/2015
GULAB BAT & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Ramesh K.Mishra and Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 9259/2015
GULAB BAT & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Ramesh K.Mishra and Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.....Respondents
Through Mr.Ajjay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for R-1.
Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for R-2.
Through Mr.Ajjay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for R-1.
Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for R-2.
W.P.(C) 723/2016 & C.M. No.3126/2016
BHAG WAN DAS
Petitioner r
BHAG WAN DAS
Petitioner r
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.....Respondent
Through Ms.Priya Kaira, Advocate for R- 1.
Mr.Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for R-2.
Through Ms.Priya Kaira, Advocate for R- 1.
Mr.Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for R-2.
W.P.(C) 751/2016 & C.M. No.3245/2016
SAMPATI DEVI Petitioner 2016:DHC:8646
SAMPATI DEVI Petitioner 2016:DHC:8646
VERSUS
Through Mr.Anju Gupta and Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate for SDMC/R- 1.
Mr.Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.
Mr.Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.
W.P.(C) 753/2016 & C.M. No.3249/20 16
IV- KAMLA
IV- KAMLA
VERSUS
r
Through Ms.Priya Kaira for Ms.Manorama, Advocate for R- 1.
Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for R-2.
Through Ms.Priya Kaira for Ms.Manorama, Advocate for R- 1.
Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
12.07.2016 The prayer made in the present petition has been perused.
Admittedly, after the filing of the present writ petition the Town
Vending Committee (TVC) is functional. The grievance of the
U petitioner and the prayer made by him is to relocate/rehabilitate him.
His submission is that although he was dispossessed from his original site in the year 2009, a communication dated 28.7.2011 had been issued to him by the MCD offering him an alternative site at
Madanpur Khadar. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 on this count submits that the petitioner had chosen not to accept this alternate site.
Be that as it may, since the TVC is now functional, the grievance of the petitioner will be addressed before the said TVC and this will be in terms of the directions contained in para 26 of the order passed in LPA No. 136/20116 (decided by the Division Bench of this
Court on 18.5.2016). Further contention of the petitioner that he has permanent rights of Tehbazaari shall also be considered by the TVC.
No further orders are called for in this peti ion.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J JULY 129 2016 ndn - QLL -7-23
$20, 21, 22 & 23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9259/2015 and Review Petition No. 429/2016
GULAB BAI & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
12.07.2016 The prayer made in the present petition has been perused.
Admittedly, after the filing of the present writ petition the Town
Vending Committee (TVC) is functional. The grievance of the
U petitioner and the prayer made by him is to relocate/rehabilitate him.
His submission is that although he was dispossessed from his original site in the year 2009, a communication dated 28.7.2011 had been issued to him by the MCD offering him an alternative site at
Madanpur Khadar. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 on this count submits that the petitioner had chosen not to accept this alternate site.
Be that as it may, since the TVC is now functional, the grievance of the petitioner will be addressed before the said TVC and this will be in terms of the directions contained in para 26 of the order passed in LPA No. 136/20116 (decided by the Division Bench of this
Court on 18.5.2016). Further contention of the petitioner that he has permanent rights of Tehbazaari shall also be considered by the TVC.
No further orders are called for in this peti ion.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J JULY 129 2016 ndn - QLL -7-23
$20, 21, 22 & 23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9259/2015 and Review Petition No. 429/2016
GULAB BAI & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.....Respondent ho
Through Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Mr. Kapil Dutta and p Mr. D. K. Puchnanada, Advocates for
SDMC
Mr. Anuj Aggarwa!, Addl. Standing Counsel for GNCTD
Through Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Mr. Kapil Dutta and p Mr. D. K. Puchnanada, Advocates for
SDMC
Mr. Anuj Aggarwa!, Addl. Standing Counsel for GNCTD
W.P.(C) 723/2016 and Review Petition No. 428/2016
BHAG WAN DAS
BHAG WAN DAS
VERSUS
Mr. D. K. Puchnanada, Advocates for SDMC Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Add]. Standing
W.P.(C) 751/2016 and Review Petition No. 426/2016
SAMPATI DEVI
SAMPATI DEVI
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.....Respondents
Through Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Mr. Kapi! Dutta and
Mr. D. K. Puchnanada, Advocates for SDMC Mr. Anuj Aggarwa!, Add!. Standing
Through Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Mr. Kapi! Dutta and
Mr. D. K. Puchnanada, Advocates for SDMC Mr. Anuj Aggarwa!, Add!. Standing
W.P.(C) 753/2016 and Review Petition No. 427/2016 p KAMLA
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.....Respondents
Mr. I). K. Puchnanada, Advocates for SDMC Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Addl. Standing
Mr. I). K. Puchnanada, Advocates for SDMC Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Addl. Standing
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
23.09.2016 This petition seeking review of order dated 12.07.2016 is premised on the factual submission that TVC of respondent no.1 is not functional as yet; the order dated 12.07.2016 had wrongly noted that
TVC of SDMC is functional. That part of the order/is set aside.
Application disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 gb S.' I.-
23.09.2016 This petition seeking review of order dated 12.07.2016 is premised on the factual submission that TVC of respondent no.1 is not functional as yet; the order dated 12.07.2016 had wrongly noted that
TVC of SDMC is functional. That part of the order/is set aside.
Application disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 gb S.' I.-
JUDGMENT