39 $" * + IN TTIE I{IGII COURT OF DELI{I AT NEW DELIII W.P.(C) s866/2010 & CMNo 'Itsstf/$ 0 (for stav) ..... Petitioner MD yAeuB rhr.ough: yl. Jivesh .Tiwafi & lvtu suman unauhan' Advocates' Versus MrrNrcrpAl coRPoRArIoN oF Rl*St shore ,on iiin"ll'tl* AND W.P.(C) 5867l2[ro& CMNo 'Lt55312010 (for stav) MANGAL VISHWAS *frooet, Xi""il:'1,.H#, versus ""' Respondent Thlough: Ms' Mansi Gupt4 Advocate' AND W.P.(C) 5868/2010 & CMNo '1155512$ 0 (for stav) ..... Petitioner 'REMWATI rhrough: H;"ilJ""5uI:#,. * Mr surnan Versus ..... ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawl 111 *t Hari om Sharan Singh' Advocates ll 40 + ..... Petitioner & Mr. Suman MCD 4t + MCD Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 1 AND 42. + W.P.(C) 587012010 & CM No.11558 12010 (for stay) KHETRAPAL SAHU '.... PEtitiONET Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr. Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ..... ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 43. + V/.P.(C) s87ll20l0 & CMNo.1156012010 (for stay) MADHU SUDHAN BHOMIK ..... Ptititioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & M'. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ..... ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Orn Sharan Singh, Advocates AND 44. + W.P.(C) 587212010 & CM No.11562 12010 (for stav) a, JEEVAN DAS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 2/ l0 ) Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advocates AND 45. + W.P.(C) 587312OIO & CM No.1 1564 12010 (for stav) RAVINDER SINGH ..... PEtitiONET Through: i\[r. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: IW'. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 46. + W.P.(C) s87 412010 & CM No.l 1566 120t0 (for stav) VIKRAM SINGH "" Petitioner Through: Mr' Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Ttu'ough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and ivh" Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advocates AND 47. + W.P.(C) s87 slzOIO & CM No.1 1568 /2010 (for stav) GYAN CHAND ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates 3l 1l Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 49. + W.P.(C) 587712010 & CMNo.l157112010 (for stav) BAL BIR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 50.+ W.P.(C) s87912010 & CM No.1 1573 12010 (for stav) JAMAN SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Orn Sharan Singh, Advocates. AND sl. + W.P.(C) 5880i2010 & CM No.11575 12010 (for stav) MD.SALIM ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 4t I I2- 52. + Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. AND W.P.(C) 5881/2010 & CMNo.1157712010 (for stay) JADGISH SAHU Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari Chauhan" Advocates. ..... Petitioner & Mr. Suman Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. AND 3J.+ W.P.(C) s88212010 & CM No.1157912010 (for stav) PAWAN DAS ""' Petitioner Thlough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate. A.ND s4. + W.P.(C) 5883/2010 & CMNo'1158112010 (for stav) a 5/ )9 KASHINATH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL'CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 55.+ V/.P.(C) s884/2010 & CMNo'1158312010 (for stav) SUKF{DEV SARKAR ""' Petitioner Through: N4r. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MI-INICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ...'. Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate' CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER y' 06.09.2010 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions claim to be hawkers and finther claim to have applied to Zona| Vending Cornrnittee for allotrnent of a i hawking site. They seek protection from dispossession fi'orn their existing +i 6t t \ t1 hawking sites till their representations before the Zonal Vending Cornmittee are decided. The counsel for the petitioners besides referring to various orders of this Court wherein the possession of others, whose representations before the Zonal Vending Cornmittee are pending, has been protected, also relies on Patri Vyapar Mandal Delhi (Regd) Vd. M.C.D. Town HalI (2009) I|SCC 475 wherein the Apex Court has clarified that the National Capital Tenitory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act,2009 has to be given effect to. 2. The counsels for MCD, the sole respondent impleaded in all these petitions state that the area fiom which the petitioners clairn to be hawking has been declared to be a non hawking zore. They fiuther state that the said area is not under the jurisdiction of MCD but is within the jurisdiction of DDA or PWD. The counsels have also handed over in the Court a note dated 31't August, 2010 of the Licensing Inspector, Central Zone, duly verifi.ed by the Assistant Cornrnissioner, Cenfial Zone of the MCD stating that Guru Ravidas Marg from where petitioners clairn to be hawking / squatting is a non hawking/squatting zone. i 7t I t{ 3. This Court undoubtedly has in several other rnatters protected the possession of the hawkers till the decision of their representation by the ZonaI Vending Cornrnittee. However, each of the said orders is on the condition that the protection granted by the Court will not enure if the area where the petitioners were hawking/squatting falls in a non hawking zore. 4. It was also brought to the notice of this Court in several such rnatters that owing to such orders being rnade by the Courts, the functioning of the Zonal Vending Comrnittee is being affected inasmuch as the persons found eligible by the Zonal Vending Comrnittee and allotted a particular site are being deprived of their sites so allotted to them owing to the silne having been occupied by solne other persons whose eligibility is still to be detennined lut whose possession/occupation was protected by the order of the Court. Irr these cilcurnstances, in subsequent orders, this Court has also clarified that the protection shall not be available if the site on which the petitioners ale hawking / squatting is allotted to sorne other person found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot rely on the said orders. a 8t th 5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that there are several other hawkers who are hawking on Guru Ravidas Marg and controverts the stand of the MCD of Guru Ravidas Marg being anon hawking / scluatting zor\e. 6. Need is not felt to keep these petitions pending to resolve the said controversyr. The rights of the petitioners ale ultimately to be decided by the Zonal Vending Comrnittee only. The petitioners have only given the Diary Nurnbers of the applications/representations stated to have been filed by thern before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee. The counsels for the respondent MCD point out that in WP(C)558212010 the particulars of the petitioner are also vague. 7. Insofal as the reliance on the Act aforesaid is concerned, the provisions of Sections 3(1Xb) and3Q) thereof have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act. Section 4 disentitles fi'orn relief under Section 3 of the Act in respect of encroaclunent on public street/land. Section 3(1Xb) refers only to scheme and orderly an'angernents for regulation of urban sh'eet vendors in consonance with the National Policy for Ur-ban Street Vendors and Hawkers. If under the said policy a 9l I)- a particulal site is declaled as non hawking zone, then the benefit of Section 3(1Xb) I 3(2) would not be available to an unauthorized squatter'/hawker on the said road. 8. The petitions ar€ therefore disposed of only with the direction to the petitioners to appeal before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee alongwith all the documents required by the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee to assess the eligibihty of the petitioners. The Zonal Vending Cornrnittee to decide the case of each of the petitiohers within one month of the petitioners' appearing before the Zonal Vending Corunittee. The petitioners will not be entitled to scluatlhawk in any non hawking zone till then. The petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. s86612010 010 i in W.P. 0. CM No. .P.(C 5871/2010" CM No.11563/2010 in W.P.(O 5872/2010" CM No.11565/2010 in W.P.(C) 5873/2010" CM No.11567/2010 in W.P.(C) 5874/2010, CM No.11569/2010 in W.P.(C) 5875/2010. CM No.11572l2010 in W.P.(C) 5877/2010, CM No.11574/2010 in W.P.(C) 5879/2010. CM No.11576/2010 in W.P.(C) 5880/20L0. CM No.11578/2010 in W.P.(C) 5881/2010. CM No.11580/2010 in W.P.(C) 5882/2010. CM No.11582/2010 in W.P.(C) 5883/20L0. CM No.11584/2010 in W.P.(C) 5884/2010 ( all u/s 151 CPC for exemptions) Allowed t.d RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J rcl w.P.(c) 5867/2010. CM No.11556/2010 in W.P.(C) 5868/2010. CM