Shri Basant Lal & ORS v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation And ANR

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4710/2017 SHRI BASANT LAL & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through Mr. Manish Srivastava and Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocates versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ajjay Anaraa, Advocate for NDMC/R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R

% 30.08.2017 17 petitioners claim to be regular squatters who are stated to be vending at S.P.M. Marg, New Delhi-110006. Copies of their respective challans have been placed on record. For the sake of convenience, the details of the year of the challans of each of the petitioners and their names are mentioned below in the tabulated form:- Sl.

No.

Name of the Petitioner Year of the Challan(s) Basant Lal 2001, 2006, 2007, 2009-2011, 2015, Rama Kant 2014, 2015 Puneet Kumar 2014, 2015 Rishi Kumar 2014, 2015 Hem Lata Gupta 2004, 2015

Deen Dayal 2002, 2003, 2007 Satpal Singh 2001, 2003, 2015 Tinku 2001, 2005, 2015 Harisharan Kumar 2013, 2015 Subhash Chand 1999, 2001, 2006 Biresh Kumar 2007, 2015, 2016 Raju 2003, 2007 Govind Kumar 2008, 2016 Mohit Gupta 2002, 2004, 2015 Roshan Singh 2007, 2016 Prem Shankar R Nanhe 2014, 2015 Relying on the aforesaid challans, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are required to be protected under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. He, however, submits that the petitioners are being harassed by the respondents and they are not being allowed to engage in their daily activities.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at this stage that the petitioners would be satisfied in case a direction is issued that the name of the petitioners may be considered by the Town Vending Committee (TVC) as and when it becomes functional and merely because they are not found vending should not be a ground to reject their case. Mr. Ajjay Anaraa, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that petitioners are not regular squatters. They are illegally squatting at the site in question. Counsel without admitting the averments made in the writ petition, submits that the petitioners are not vending at the site in question. They cannot be granted any protection.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when a survey is conducted, the petitioners would approach the Town Vending Committee with supporting documents and merely because they are not found vending should not be a ground to reject their case. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the following agreed directions: - (i) That the petitioners would make a representation to the Town Vending Committee (TVC) in the prescribed format with supporting documents as and when it is functional; (ii) The Town Vending Committee will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and expeditiously after taking into consideration all the material placed on record; (iii) In case when the survey is conducted and the petitioners are not found squatting at their respective sites, that by itself would not be a ground to reject the case of the petitioners, if the petitioners are able to place relevant documents on record.

This order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

The writ petition is disposed of.

C.M. No.20473/2017 (for stay) In view of above, the application stands disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J AUGUST 30, 2017/b