Full Text
Translation output
$-15,16,17 & 18.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 341/2016, CMNos. 20720-20721/2016
HARISH CHAND Appellant
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate alongwith Ms. Kiran Kalra, Advocate.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 341/2016, CMNos. 20720-20721/2016
HARISH CHAND Appellant
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate alongwith Ms. Kiran Kalra, Advocate.
VERSUS
NEW DELHIMUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Harsha Peechara, Addl. Standing Counsel, NDMC alongwith Mr. Mananjay Mishra, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Harsha Peechara, Addl. Standing Counsel, NDMC alongwith Mr. Mananjay Mishra, Advocate.
And
LPA 342/2016, CMNos. 20722-20723/2016
JAIVIR SINGH Appellant
Through: Mr.KirtiUppal, Sr. Advocate alongwith Ms. KiranKalra, Advocate.
JAIVIR SINGH Appellant
Through: Mr.KirtiUppal, Sr. Advocate alongwith Ms. KiranKalra, Advocate.
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS Respondents
And
And
LPA 343/2016, CMNos. 20724-20725/2016
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH Appellant alongwithMs. Kiran Kalra,Advocate.
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH Appellant alongwithMs. Kiran Kalra,Advocate.
VERSUS
2016:DHC:8429-DB NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL &ANR Respondents
And
And
LPA 344/2016, CMNos. 20726-20727/2016"
RAMDASS Appellant alongwith Ms.Kiran Kalra, Advocate.
RAMDASS Appellant alongwith Ms.Kiran Kalra, Advocate.
VERSUS
NEW DELHIMUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
27.05.2016 Issue notice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts notice.
The impugned
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
27.05.2016 Issue notice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts notice.
The impugned
ORDER
was rendered in the context of Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending)
Act, 2014. The counsels for the petitioners/appellants have claimed thattheycouldnotbe disturbed inthelightofthe enactment andhaving regardto theprevious schemes framed andconsidered byvarious court judgments.
By the impugned judgment, the Single Judge has issued certain directions and listed the petitions on 25.07.2016. This Court had on
18.05.2016 in a series of appeals (LPA No. 136/2016 and other connected matters) decided the issues both as tothe rights ofthe street vendors as well as regulatory concerns ofthe NDMC. Ithad indicated that pending survey and consideration for the purposes ofallotment of sites duly earmarked, the approach to be adopted by the NDMC. In the light of that order, the impugned order needs to be suitably modified. This Court also emphasises that the said judgment is the final judgment and thus would have an overriding effect over orders and arrangement. The final judgment both is with respect to the interim measures to be taken as well as the methodology to be adopted for settling the final rights of eligible applicants who could be treated as
Street Vendors under the Act.
Learned counsel for theparties request therefore thatthe present appeals be disposed of in the light of the judgment in LPA No.
136/2016 The impugned order totheextent is contrary to directions in the aforementioned judgmentshall standsuperseded by it.
The appeals are disposedofin the above termS;
S.RAVINDRABHAT,J DEEPASHARMA,J MAY 27, 2016 sapna
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending)
Act, 2014. The counsels for the petitioners/appellants have claimed thattheycouldnotbe disturbed inthelightofthe enactment andhaving regardto theprevious schemes framed andconsidered byvarious court judgments.
By the impugned judgment, the Single Judge has issued certain directions and listed the petitions on 25.07.2016. This Court had on
18.05.2016 in a series of appeals (LPA No. 136/2016 and other connected matters) decided the issues both as tothe rights ofthe street vendors as well as regulatory concerns ofthe NDMC. Ithad indicated that pending survey and consideration for the purposes ofallotment of sites duly earmarked, the approach to be adopted by the NDMC. In the light of that order, the impugned order needs to be suitably modified. This Court also emphasises that the said judgment is the final judgment and thus would have an overriding effect over orders and arrangement. The final judgment both is with respect to the interim measures to be taken as well as the methodology to be adopted for settling the final rights of eligible applicants who could be treated as
Street Vendors under the Act.
Learned counsel for theparties request therefore thatthe present appeals be disposed of in the light of the judgment in LPA No.
136/2016 The impugned order totheextent is contrary to directions in the aforementioned judgmentshall standsuperseded by it.
The appeals are disposedofin the above termS;
S.RAVINDRABHAT,J DEEPASHARMA,J MAY 27, 2016 sapna