Ravi v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc) & ANR

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5203/2017 RAVI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Dharmender Sharma, Advocate.

versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (SDMC) & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel for R-1.

Mr.Rajat Malhotra & Mr.Sunil Malhotra, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 31.05.2017 CM Nos.22144 & 22145/2017 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of.

CM No.22146/2017 Dismissed as not pressed.

W.P.(C) 5203/2017 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims that he was running his stall since 2009 near DTC Bus Terminal, BSES Road, Kalkaji, Nehru Place, Delhi. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the

respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner as and when the TVC is constituted on the petitioner submitting the requisite documents.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 enters appearance. Without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition, it is submitted that should the petitioner make an application with supporting documents before the TVC, the same would be considered in accordance with law and merely because the petitioner is not found squatting, that itself alone would not be a ground to reject the case of the petitioner.

Based on the stand taken by the learned counsels for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the following agreed directions:- (iii) In case the petitioner makes an application along with supporting documents to the Town Vending Committee, the TVC will consider the same in accordance with law. (iv) Merely because the petitioner is not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted, that by itself would not be a ground alone to reject his case.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. G.S.SISTANI, J REKHA PALLI, J MAY 31, 2017/gm