Sukhpal v. New Delhi Municipal Council & ANR

w"tHE high court of DELHI AT NEW DELHI 26+ W.P.(C) 233/2016 LAXMI DEVI @ LAXMA

Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL &ANR Respondents 27+ W.P.(C) 234/2016 Petitioner ^ RAJU @ DAULAT RAM

Versus

new DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 28+ W.P.(C) 235/2016 ..Petitioner RAJU

Versus

new DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 29+ W.P.(C) 236/2016 JOGINDER KUMAR

Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 30+ W.P.(C) 237/2016 naresh sah

Versus

new DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 31+ W.P.(C) 238/2016 SUKHPAL

Versus

new DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 32+ W.P.(C) 242/2016 rajbir V ersus By:AMULYA

-J NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 33+ W.P.(C) 245/2016 BRAHMA PRAKASH Petitioner

Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 34+ W.P.(C) 246/2016 SURENDER SINGH AHUJA Petitioner

Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 35+ W.P.(C) 249/2016 NARESH CHAND Petitioner

Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 36+ W.P.(C) 250/2016 KAMALA DEVI Petitioner

Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents 37+ W.P.(C) 252/2016 ROSHAN LAL Petitioner

Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR Respondents Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Counsel for respondent: Mr. Mananjay Kumar Mishra, Adv. for NDMC.

Mr. Ronvijay Gohain, Officer of R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW

ORDER

0/^ 12.01.2016 1.

The petitioner in each of these petitions claim to be vending from

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 places from where they 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 Delhi Municipal Council and 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 of Street 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 of this Court but is to be conducted by the Town Vending Committee to be constituted. 3.

Moreover, the counsel for the respondent NDMC appearing on advance notice states that the Town Vending Committee has been constituted, as informed before the Contempt Court. 4.

The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make out any case why a view different from what was taken in Brahm Pal and Rajnesh supra should be taken.

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. / \ RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

JANUARY 12,2016 bs