High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/3769/2016

Kuldeep Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & ORS

2016-07-25Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur2 pages

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3769/2016 & C.M. No.16071/2016 KULDEEP SINGH .......... Petitioner Through Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr.

Adv.

with Ms.Aastha Dhawan, Ms.Wamika Trehan and Ms.Gauri P.Desai, Advocates.

versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR.

..... Respondents Through Mr.Harsha Peechara and Mr.

Mananjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate for R-1.

Mr.Rajat Malhotra, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 25.07.2016 Petitioner is stated to be a squatter at a site opposite Shop No.A-16, Shree Leathers Showroom, Regal Building Connaught Place, New Delhi. He is stated to be a squatter since 1989. He has admittedly be removed from the site. Submission of the petitioner is that he is protected under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the definition as contained in Section 2(l) of the said Act includes even a past squatter. Submission is that she should be restored that site.

On advance notice respondent has put in appearance. His submission is that the petitioner is not a licensed Tehbazari holder.

At best he can only be an unauthorised squatter. That apart learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Town Vending Committee (TVC) has been constituted qua respondent.

All grievances of the petitioner may be addressed before the TVC; this would be in conformity with the judgment passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.136/2016 titled as Bhola Ram Patel vs. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. decided on 18.5.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been removed from site this grievance of the petitioner may not be within the domain of the TVC.

This Court need not delve into this aspect as the constitution of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 which encompasses all rights of the street vendors and the judgment of Bhola Ram (supra) had laid down the law on this aspect.

In this view of the matter it would appropriate for the petitioner to approach the TVC for the redressal of his grievance, if any. As when representation is made to the concerned TVC, the same shall be answered in accordance with law within four months. No further orders are called for in this petition. Petition disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J JULY 25, 2016 ndn