Virender & ORS v. Delhi Development Authority & ORS

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 513/2016 VIRENDER & ORS ..... Appellants Through Mr C Mohan Rao with Mr Lokesh K.

Sharma, Advs. for applicants versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr Hem Kumar, Advs.

Ms Mansi Gupta, Adv. for SDMC Mr Devesh Singh, ASC with Mr Vinod Kumar Bhati, Adv.

for GNCTD Ms Mansi Gupta, Adv. for R2 Mr Vikas Mahajan, CGSC for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 19.09.2016 CMs 34044 - 34045 /2016 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of.

LPA 513/2016 & CM 34046 /2016 (delay) There is a delay of 32 days in filing the present Intra Court Appeal. Before issuing notice on the application, we deem it appropriate to hear counsel for the appellant on merits.

2.

The impugned order dated 08.07.2016 reads as under: "C.M.No.22434/2016 Matter has been listed today as 7th July, 2016 was declared holiday on account of Idu'l Fitr.

Present application in a disposed of matter is not maintainable. However, if the petitioners are of the view that the order passed by this Court is not being complied with,

they are given liberty to file an appropriate proceeding in accordance with the law.

With the aforesaid liberty, the present application is dismissed."

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, application should have been entertained and appropriate orders should have been passed. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi High Court and another v Atul Kumar Sharma, (2001) 9 SCC 108. 4.

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 5.

The W.P.(C) No. 2545/2010 was disposed of on 13.10.2014 recording that the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 had come into force on 04.03.2014 and it provides for constitution of a Town Vending Committee which is to conduct survey of existing street vendors and a scheme has to be framed for relocation. This was on account of the fact that MCD had notified 'no hawking zones'. This order also refers to Section 3(3) of the aforesaid Act and states that the State Government has to set up a Town Vending Committee. The appellants were directed to file their representation with the Committee. 6.

The Nehru Place Zone was under the Delhi Development Authority. This zone was subsequently transferred to the respondent No.2 - South Delhi Municipal Council (SDMC) on 02.09.2014. At the time of said transfer, Delhi Development Authority had furnished a list of court cases, with details of the orders passed by different courts. This list of 114 hawkers included the appellants.

7.

The respondent No.2 - SDMC had carried out their own survey in the month of November, 2014 and on 2nd December, 2014. As per the survey report, the present appellants were not carrying on hawking and were not

squatting in Nehru Place Plaza area. Another survey was conducted in June, 2016. The appellants were again not found and available at the said site. 8.

The appellants profess and claim that because of the construction work by the Delhi Metro, they were forced and compelled to move / shift from place to place. Taking advantage, the respondent no.2- SDMC had given the hawking sites to other hawkers.

9.

The appellants thereby accept that they were not found to be present at the site at the time of inspection / survey. The reason and cause why they were not found is a question of debate and dispute. 10.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the cross - submissions, we hold that the Ld. Single Judge was right in directing that the appellants herein if aggrieved should file a fresh/new writ petition. The appellants should not be heard in an application in the disposed of matter. 11.

In these circumstances, we do not feel that the decision in the case of Atul Kumar Sharma (supra) relied upon by the appellants has any relevance or is applicable in the facts.

12.

Accordingly, we are not inclined to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay and the appeal are dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J JAYANT NATH,J SEPTEMBER 19, 2016/rd