Rohit Kumar Yadav v. New Delhi Municipal Council & ANR

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 173/2017 & CM Nos.786/2017, 14714/2017 ROHIT KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Michael Peter, Advocate versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, ASC with Mr. Mananjay Kumar Misra & Ms.

Vidhi Jain, Advocates for NDMC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R

% 10.07.2017 It is submitted that the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the list of 628 street vendors approved by the New Delhi Municipal Council ('NDMC'). Today, Mr. Michael Peter, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a reply received by him on queries raised by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He submits that there are at least four persons who have been allowed to squat in the Sarojini Nagar Market although their names do not find mention in the list of 628 street vendors. Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, ASC appearing for the NDMC submits that at present, only those persons whose names find mention in the list of 628 street vendors, have been allotted to squat in Sarojini Nagar Market, which is evident from the list provided by the petitioner.

As far as one or two names pointed out, Mr. Peechara states that he would

seek appropriate instructions.

Since the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the list of 628 street vendors and also that the challans placed on record pertain to different years, which do not show that he is really vending at the site mentioned, we dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Town Vending Committee with supporting documents , as and when it is functional. We also make it clear that merely because the petitioner is not found vending, that alone would not be a ground to reject his case.

The writ petition and all the pending applications are disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J JULY 10, 2017 tp