Suraj Kumar Bawariya v. New Delhi Municipal Council And ANR.
Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
$-8 to 10 .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1763/2019 & CM.APPL 8147/2019 SHEELA BAWARIYA Petitioner versus new DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR Respondents + W.P.(C) 1766/2019 & CM.APPL 8238/2019 SURAJ KUMAR BAWARIYA .. Petitioner versus + . Petitioner NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.
Respondents W.P.(C) 1778/2019 & CM.APPL 8286/2019 MEENA BAWARIYA versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.
Respondents & Ms. Kriti Sinha, Advocates in all items.
Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for R-2 in all items. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
29.04.2019 % These are the petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In all these petitions, petitioners claim to be regular stmet vendors squatting at the following sites .
Place of squatting slNiHWJ.
(C) No.
Name of the petitioners Opp. DLF Mall, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-23 Opp. DLF Mall, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-23 ^^753/2oT9 Sheela Bawariya r766/2^ [Suraj Kumar Bawariya
1778/2019 Meena Bawariya j In front of Shop ^'
Mini Market, Sarojim Nagar, New Delhi-23 - Mr Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Town Vending Committee (TVC) has since been constituted, the petmoners would approach the TVC. He seeks a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and, if for any reason, the petitioners are not found squatting, that alone should not be a ground to reject their case. Counsel relies ® on the copies of challans placed on record.
Time was sought by Mr. Peechara, counsel for the NDMC to verify t e authenticity of the challans placed on record by the petitioners. He submits that some of the challans seem to be suspicious. However, without admitting any of the averments made in the petition, Mr. Peechara submits that m case the petitioners approach the TVC (at that stage the challans would also be verified), and make an application with all supporting documents before the TVC, t e same would be considered in accordance with law and merely because t e petitioners are not found squatting, that itself alone would not be a ground to reject the case of the petitioners.
Accordingly, the writ petitions and all pending applications are dispose of with the following agreed directions:
(i) The petitioners will approach the TVC with all supporting documents; and (ii) The TVC will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and merely because the petitioners are not found vending at the site at the time of survey, that by itself would not be a ground alone to reject their case.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
2/3 W.P.(C) 1763/2019 etc.
rM.APPL 'stay) in W.P.(r) rM APPT. S238/?ni') fstav) m W.P. Q rM.APPL f<lf<(*l2Q19 (stay) in W.P.(C) 1778/2019 The applications stand disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petitions.
G.S.SISTANI,J JYOTI SINGH, J APRIL 29,2019/ck 3/3 fV.P.(C) 1763/2019 & on.