Dharam Pal v. Chairman, NDMC

Delhi High Court · 25 Jan 2016 · 2016:DHC:9275
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
W.P.(C) No.651/2016
2016:DHC:9275
administrative appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions by street vendors without valid licenses seeking protection from eviction, directing them to approach the Town Vending Committee as per law.

Full Text
Translation output
$'

^29 to 33 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 651/2016 &CM No.2719/2016 (for directions)
DHARAM PAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Sajid, Adv.
VERSUS
CliAIRMAN, NDMC & ORS
Through:
Respondents Ml-. Mananjay Mishra & Mr. Harsha Peechara, Advs. for NDMC.
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Adv. for GNCTD.
AND
W.P.(C) 661/2016 &CM No.2747/2016 (for directions)
I A SAMSUL ZAMA Petitioner
Through; Mr. Mohd. Sajid, Adv..
V crsus CHAIRMAN, NDMC &ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Mananjay Mishra & Mr. Harsha Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Adv. for
GNCTD.
AND
W.P.(C) 662/2016 &CM No.2749/2016 (for directions)
SIRJUYADAV ^.titioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Sajid, Adv.
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, NDMC &ORS Respondents Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Adv for
GNCTD.
AND
SuSr^CMNo.2819/2016(fordirections)
T.1 . , Petitioner
Through: Mi*. Mohd. Sajid, Adv.
VERSUS
P'ige / 0/3 2016:DHC:9275 CI-IAIRMAN, NDMC & ORS Respondents
Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Adv. for GNCTD.
AND
W.P.(C) 690/2016 & CMNo.2823/2016 (fordirections)
HUKUM SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Sajid,Adv.
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, NDMC AND ORS Respondenta Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Adv. for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
25.01.2016 CM No.2720/2016 in W.P.(C) No.651/2016. CM No.2748/2016 in
W.P.(C) No.661/2016. CM No.2750/2016 in W.P.rc^ No.662/2016. CM
No.2820/2016 in W.P.(C) No.688/2016 & CM No.2824/2016 in W.V.(C)
No.690/2016 fall for exemptions^
ORDER

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of W.P.(C) Nos.651/2016. 661/2016. 662/2016, 688/2016 & 690/7,01^

3. These petitions seek to restrain the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and the police from dispossessing the petitioners from the places where they claim to be street vending.

4. This Court vide detailed orders in Brahm Pal Vs. New Delhi MunicipalCouncilMANU/DE/1942/2015 and mRajnesh Vs. South Delhi Page 2 of[3] Municipal Corporation MANU/DE/2656/2015 has held that no relief can be granted in such petitions.

5. Thoughthe order inRajnesh suprain appeal has been set aside but on the ground of the petitioners therein having the tehbazari licence under the earlier regime. Neither ofthe petitioners falls inthat category.

6. Thus in accordance with the said judgments, these petitions are dismissed.

7. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to approach the Town Vending Committee.

8. "It is clarified that the petitioners, in accordance with law, would be entitled thereto. No costs.

JANUARY 25, 2016 'gsr'.. RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J Page 3 of[3]