Ram Sahai v. New Delhi Municipal Council

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1136/2017 RAM SAHAI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ramesh K. Mishra, Adv.

versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sri Harsha Peechara, ASC, NDMC with Mr.Mananjay Mishra & Mr.Shailja Nandan Mishra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R

% 08.02.2017 C.M. No.5166/2017 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) No.1136/2017 Petitioner claims to be a tehbazari holder and was vending at Shop behind Stall No.32, Khanna Market, New Delhi. The petitioner also claims that he was removed in the year 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made all the attempts for an alternate site but has not been successful. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Town Vending Committee to consider his case as an existing vendor. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is not being allowed to squat and vend, in case a survey is conducted, the rights of the petitioner would be seriously affected. Learned counsel for NDMC, who enters appearance on an advance copy, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition, submits that as

and when the survey is conducted, in case the petitioner makes an application in the prescribed format and files supporting documents, the Town Vending Committee would consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. Merely because the petitioner is not found squatting at the site at the time of survey, that would not be a ground alone to reject the case of the petitioner if the petitioner is able to place relevant documents on record. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. G.S.SISTANI, J.

VINOD GOEL, J.

FEBRUARY 08, 2017/ka /s W.P.(C) 1136/2017 2/2