$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4496/2011 MANOHAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dharmendar Sharma & Ms. Monika Singh, Advs. Versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS..... Respondents Through: Mr. M.K. Mishra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 16.05.2016 CM No.18478/2016 (of the petitioner for correction of memo of parties) 1. The petitioner / applicant, after five years of the disposal of the writ petition vide order dated 27th June, 2011, seeks to correct the memo of parties therein. 2. This petition was filed inter alia pleading that the petitioner since long had been squatting and street vending at / near backside to Shop No.27, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi and to restrain the respondents New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and Police from interfering in the said street vending activities of the petitioner. 3. The petition came up first before this court on 27th June, 2011 when it was disposed of by restraining the respondent NDMC and Police from so disturbing the petitioner. 4. The petitioner now wants to amend only the memo of parties to describe his vending site as “at / near opposite to Shop No.27, Sarojini W.P.(C) 4496/2011 Page 1 of 2 Nagar Market, New Delhi” without effecting any change in the petition in which it was pleaded that the petitioner had been squatting and street vending from “at / near backside to Shop No.27, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi”. 5. The counsel for the petitioner argues that in the last 4/5 inspections, the petitioner has been found to have been squatting at the opposite side to Shop No.27, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi instead of at the backside of the said shop as was earlier pleaded and hence now wants to claim his rights with respect to the opposite side of the shop instead of backside. 6. It is quite obvious that the petitioner, after the order dated 27th June, 2011 has changed his vending site and axiomatically the protection afforded to the petitioner with respect to backside of the shop No.27, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi cannot be made available to the opposite side of the shop. Even otherwise, the basis of the order was the petitioner having been squatting at the site for long. The petitioner has not pleaded having been street vending from the opposite side for a long time and the order in the petition cannot be permitted to be changed in the manner sought to be done. 7. The application is dismissed. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MAY 16, 2016 „gsr‟.. W.P.(C) 4496/2011 Page 2 of 2