Rajesh Kumar @ Raju v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc) & ANR

$-29 to 37 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) 1763/2017 + + + + + + + + + 1764/2017 1774/2017 1778/2017 1779/2017 1790/2017 1797/2017 1799/2017 1801/2017 Petitioner RAKESH KUMAR NEERAJ BRIJESH KUMAR HARINDER MAHAVIR RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU PRABHU DAYAL AJAY PAL KISHAN KUMAR & OTHERS Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Through: Mr. Dharmender Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate.

versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (SDMC) & ANR Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate for SDMC in item no. 29.

Mr. Roshan Lai Goel, Advocate with Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocate for SDMC in item no. 30 & 33.

Ms. Archana Sharma, Advocate for SDMC in item no. 31.

Mr. Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for SDMC in item no.32.

By:AMULYA

yMs. Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for R-2 in item no. 32. Ms. Sangeeta Chandara, Advocate with Mr.

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for SDMC in item no. 34.

Mr. Sachin Nahar, Advocate for R-2 in item no.33 &37 Mr. Raj an Tyagi, Advocate for SDMC in item no.35., '

Ms. Shobha Gupta, Advocate for SDMC in item no. 36.

Ms. Manorama Masih, Advocate for SDMC in item no. 37.

Mr. Raj at Malhotra, Advocate for R-2 along with ASI Yashpal, PS Kalkaji, New Delhi in item no.29 & 34 to 36.

V

CORAM:

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

ORDER

% 27.02.20l7 CM.APPL 7829-7830/2017 (Exemptionl CM.APPL 7832-7833/2017 (Exemption^ CM.APPL 7855-7856/2017 (Exemption^ CM.APPL 7862-7863/2017 rExemptionV CM.APPL 7865-7866/2017 (Exemption) CM.APPL 7929-7930/2017 (Exemption) CM.APPL 7986-7987/2017 (Exemption^ CM.APPL 7991-7992/2017 (Exemption) CM.APPL 7997-7998/2017 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C11763/2017 & CM 7831/2017 (stay) W.P.fCl 1764/2017 & CM 7834/2017 (stavl W.P.YCl 1774/2017 & CM 7857/2017 (stay)

2> W.P.fC) 1778/2017 & CM 7864/2017 (stay) W.P.(0 1779/2017 & CM 7867/2017 (stay) W.P.fO 1790/2017 & CM 7931/2017 (stay) W.P.(0 1797/2017 & CM 7988/2017 (stay) W.P.rO 1799/2017 & CM 7993/2017 (stay) W.P.(a 1801/2017 & CM 7999/2017 (stay) These writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The petitioners claim to be vending at various sites as detailed below: - 1.

Rakesh Kumar Nehru Place Complex, New Delhi.

2.

Neeraj 0pp. Ram Piyau Parking, Lotus Temple Lane, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

3.

Brijesh Kumar Near Bus Terminal Gate No. 1, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

4.

Harinder Near Bus Terminal Gate No. 2, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

5.

Mahaveer Near Bus Stand Govind Puri, Gali No. 1, New Delhi.

(a), Raju 0pp. Lotus Temple, Kalkaji Temple Marg, New Delhi.

I Rakesh Kumar 6.

7.

Prabhy Dayal Outside Gate No. 1, Kalkaji Metro Station, New Delhi.

8.

Ajay Pal Near Bus Terminal Gate No.2, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

9.

Kishan'Kumar Near 55 Maduwan Building, Nehru Place Complex, New Delhi.

Rakesh Near 57 Maduwan Building, Nehru Place Complex, New Delhi.

Kishan Pal Singh Near 55 Maduwan Building, Nehru Place Complex, New Delhi.

The petitioners also claim that they have been removed by the officials of the respondent. Mr. Sharma submits that the petitioners apprehend that as and when a survey is conducted and the petitioners are not found vending, they niay not be considered for grant of licences.

Counsel for the respondents deny each and every averment made in the writ petition. It is further submitted that because the petitioners are not found vending as and when a survey is conducted that by itself would not be . a ground to reject their claims provided the petitioners are able to provide necessary supporting documents. However, as agreed, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: - (i) The cases of the petitioners would be considered by the Town Vending Committee at the appropriate stage.

(ii) Merely because the petitioners are not found vending when the survey is conducted, would not be a ground alone to reject their case, in case the vendors produce supporting documents. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the matters.

With the above said directions, the petitions are disposed of. Dasti. .

G.S.SISTANI, J VINOD GOEL, J FEBRUARY 27, 2017 "sk"