Prakash v. New Delhi Municipal Council And ANR

$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7112/2017 PRAKASH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. N. K. Sahoo, Advocate

Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Standing Counsel with Mr. Mananajay Mishra and Ms. Vidhi Jain, Advocates Mr. Avtar Singh and Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocates for R-2 Mr. Ashish Mohan and Mr. Akshit Maho, Advocates for Sarojni Nagar Market Association

CORAM:

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

O R D E R

% 18.08.2017 The petitioner is a handicapped person. He has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to provide the petitioner a vending site in front of Shop No.162, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi. 2.

The petitioner claims that he has been continuously squatting for the past many years. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner is also in the list of 628 squatters/vendors which was prepared by the New Delhi Municipal Council. The petitioner claims that he was illegally removed from the squatting place on 06.10.2016. He also claims that the respondent had accepted the registration charges for allotment of space identified in Sarojini Nagar on 28.01.2013. The copy of the receipt has been placed on record.

3.

Mr. Peechara, learned Standing Counsel who enters appearance on an advance copy, refutes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is not a regular street vendor. He is not squatting in the area as claimed by him. He submits that no document supporting the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner has been placed on record including challans, if any. 4.

Mr. Peechara also submits that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the list of the persons removed on 06.10.2016. It is also contended that, in case the petitioner was removed from the place of squatting he would not have had waited for 08 months, before approaching this Court.

5.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the absence of any document placed on record, that the petitioner is a regular squatter, we found no ground to entertain the present petition and the same is dismissed.

6.

As and when Town Vending Committee (TVC) is constituted, in case the petitioner approaches the TVC along with the supporting documents, the case of the petitioner would be considered by the TVC. Merely because the petitioner was not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted, that alone would not be a ground to reject the case of the petitioner.

G.S.SISTANI, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J AUGUST 18, 2017/b