Prem Lata v. New Delhi Municipal Council And ORS

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4340/2016 & C.M. No.18206/2016 PREM LATA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Ms.

Aastha Dhawan, Ms. Wamika Trehan and Ms. Gauri P. Desai, Advs.

versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Harsha Peechara and Mr.

Mananjay Kumar Mishra, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Swaty Singh Malik and Mr.

Harsh Nagar, Advs. 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 Janpath Subway, near Jeevan Bharti Building, Sansad marg, New Delhi from 1979 to 2006. She has admittedly been removed from the site. Submission of the petitioner is that she 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 her site should be restored.

On advance notice, respondent No. 1 has put in appearance. His submission is that the petitioner is not a licensed Tehbazari holder.

At best she can only be an unauthorised squatter. That apart learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the Town Vending Committee (TVC) has been constituted qua respondent No. 1. All grievances of the petitioner may be addressed before the TVC; they would be also 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 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 be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the TVC for the redressal of her grievance, if any. As and 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.

Order dasti.

INDERMEET KAUR, J JULY 25, 2016