Full Text
26+ W.P.(C)233/2016 LAXMIDEVI@LAXMA
^ RAJU@DAULATRAM
28+ W.P.(C)235/2016 ..Petitioner RAJU
33+ W.P.(C)245/2016 BRAHMAPRAKASH Petitioner
SURENDERSINGH AHUJA Petitioner
NARESHCHAND Petitioner
KAMALADEVI Petitioner
ROSHANLAL Petitioner
Counselforrespondent: Mr.MananjayKumarMishra,Adv.for
NDMC.
Mr.Ronvijay Gohain,Officer ofR-2.
0/^ 12.01.2016
ORDER
1. Thepetitionerineachofthesepetitionsclaimtobevendingfrom Page2of[4] different places on the footpath in front of Block-C, Central Market East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi and have filed these petitions to restrain the respondents New Delhi Municipal Council(NDMC)and National Building Construction Company (NBCC) from dispossessing the petitioners from different placesfrom wherethey claim to be vending.
2. I had in earlier stint on this Roster passed detailed orders in similar petitions i.e. order dated 30^ June, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.6115/2015 titled Brahm Pal Vs.New DelhiMunicipalCounciland other connected petitions and order dated 11* August,2015 in W.P.(C)No.6694/2015 titled Rajnesh Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and other connected petitions and had inter alia observed that even though the Town Vending Committee within the meaning of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation ofStreet Vending)Act,2014 has not been constituted as yet but protection as is sought in these petitions cannot be granted inter alia for the reasons that the provision in that regard already exist in the Act and for the reason that for this Court to return any finding,factual enquiry will have to be conducted, whether each of the petitioner is street vending from the location claimed or not and which inquiry is not in the domain ofthis Court butisto be conducted bythe Town Vending Committeeto be constituted.
3. Moreover, the counsel for the respondent NDMC appearing on advance notice states that the Town Vending Committee has been constituted,asinformed before the Contempt Court.
4. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make outany case why a view differentfrom what wastaken inBrahmPaland Rajnesh supra should be taken. Page3of[4]
5. These petitions are accordingly dismissed.
6. I am refraining from imposing any costs as were imposed in W.P.(C) No.6694/2015,taking a lenient view and in the hope that no further petitions will be preferred.
6. The counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to approach the Town Vending Committee.
7. Liberty is given in accordance with law. / \ JANUARY 12,2016 bs RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW,J. Page4of[4]