e 39 s-* IN THE HIGH COIJRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) s86612010 & CM No.1155ll20r0 (for stay) MD YAQUB ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr. Surnan Chauhan" Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent - Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate. AND 40 r .) + V/.P.(C) 586712010 & CM No.11553 12010 (for stay) MANGAL VISHWAS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ..... Respondent Ttu'ough: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. AND 4T _) + V/.P.(C) sB68l20I0 & CM No.1 1555 12010 (for stay) PREM WATI ..... Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr. Suman -. Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates I/ 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 t1 AND 42. + W.P.(C) 587012010 & CM No.11558 12010 (for stay) KHETRAPAL SAHU ""' Petitioner Ttn'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr. Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. . Versus MCD ..... Respondent Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. Through: -. AND W.P,(C) s87Il20I0 & CM No.1 1560 12010 (for stay) MADHU SUDHAN BHOMIK ..... Petitioner & Mr. Suman Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari Chauhan. Advocates. Versus rhrough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat # r#:iltrtST, Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 44. ' + W.P.(C) s87212010 & CM No.11562 12010 (for stay) JEEVAN DAS .... Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali &. IvIr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 2l 43. -r --.r-) MCq I 1 i ; \ lo, Versus MCD ..... ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Orn Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 45. + W.P.(C) 587312010 & CM No.1156412010 (for stav) RAVINDER SINGH ....' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Nir. Suman Chauhan. Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ...'. Respondent Tlu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. -1!)- AND 46. + V/.P.(C) s87412010 & CMNo.1156612010 (for stay) VIKRAM SINGH ..... Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr. Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD "... ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and IMr'. Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 47. + W.P.(C) s87512010 & CMNo.11568/2010 (for stay) GYAN CHAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates 3l t ->,- l,t . Versus ML]NICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... RESPONdENT Ttu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha' Advocate' AND 49. + W.P.(C) s877l2}l} & CM No' 1 1571 12010 (for stav) BAL BIR ""' Petitioner Thlough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus ML]NICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... RESPONdENT Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate' AND s0.+ W.P.(C) 587912010 & CM No' 11573 12010 (for stav) JAMAN SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & lvlr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates' -) AND 51. .r^ -r- W.P.(C) 5880/2010 & CMNo'1157512010 (for stav) MD.SALIM "" Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwarj & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates 4l Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... RESPONdENT Ttu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate' AND 52. +w.P.(C)5881/2010&CMNo.1.157712010(forstay) JADGISH SAHU ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali &' Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates' . Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent -,rThr.ough:Mr.NawalKishoreJh4Advocate. AND -- 5J.+ W.P.(C) s882l2OIO & CMNo'l157912010 (for stav) PAWAN DAS ""' Petitioner Ttu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus \-' , MLTNICI'AL coRpoRATIoN oF DELHI Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' J. AND it w.p.(c) 5883/2010 & cMNo.11581 r20r0(for stay) J tg KASHINATH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr' Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPALCORPORATIONoFDELHI.....Respondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate' AND 55.+ W.P.(C) 5884/2010 & CMNo'l158312010 (for stav) SUKHDEV SARKAR ""' Petitioner - Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER 'h 06.09.20L0 -,1 l. The petitioners in these writ petitions clairn to be hawkers and ftuther claim to have applied to Zonal Vending Cornrnittee for allotrnent of . a -'-' hawking site. They seek protection from dispossession fi'orn their existing 6t tY *\ hawking sites till their representations before 'the Zonal Vending Committee.ale decided. The counsel for the petitioners besides refening to various orders of this Court wherein the possession of others' whose representations befole the Zonal.Vending Committee q'e pending, has been protected, also relies on Patri vyupur Mundul Delhi (Regd) vd' M'C'D' Town Halt (2009) 12 SCC 475 wherein the Apex Court has clarified that the National Capital Teritory of Delhi Laws (Specia1 Provisions) Second Act,2009 has to be giveneffect to' 2. The counsels for MCD, the sole respondent impleaded in all these petitions state that the area frorn which the petitioners clairn to be hawking has been declared to be a non hawking zone' They further 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" August, 2010 of the Licensing Inspector, Central Zone, duly verified by the Assistant commissioner, cent'al zone of the MCD stating that Guru Ravidas Marg fi'orn where petitioners clairn to be hawking / squatting is a non hawking/squatting zone' \ il S '\ 3. This Court undoubtedly has in several other rnatters protected the possession of the hawkers till the decision of their representation by the Zonal Vending Committee. However, each of the said orders is on the condition that the protection granted by the Court will not enru'e if the area where the petitioners were hawking/squatting falls in a non hawking zone. 4. It was also brought to the notice of this Court in several such matters that owing to such orders being rnade by the Courts, the functioning of the ZonalVending Co#itt.e is being affected inasrnuch as the persons found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cornmittee and allotted a particular site are being deprived of their sites so allotted to thern owing to the sztme having been occupied by sorne other persons whose eligibility is still to be detennined but whose possession/occupation was protected by the order of the Court. In these circumstances, in subsequent orders, this Court has also clarified that the protection shall not be available if the site on which the petitioners are hawking / squatting is allotted to sorne other person found eligible by the ZonaJ, Vending Cornrnittee. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot relv on the said orders. 8l u _) I 5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that there are several other hawkers who are hawking on Guru Ravidas Marg and confi'overts the stand ofthe MCD of Guru Ravidas Malg being anon hawking / squatting zor:re- 6. Need is not felt to keep these petitions pending to resolve the said controversy. The rights of the petitioners ale ultirnately 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 Comrnittee. The counsels for the respondent MCD point out that in WP(C) 588212010 the particulars of the petitioner ale also vague. 7. Insofal as the reliance on the Act aforesaid is concetned, the provisions of Sections 3(1Xb) and 3(2) thereof have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act. Section 4 disentitles frorn relief under Section 3 of the Act in respect of encroactunent on public streeVland. Section 3(1)(b) refers only to scherne and orderly arrangelnents for regulation of urban sfieet vendors in consonance with the National Policy for ir Urban Street Vendors and Hawkers. If under the said policy 9t t> _) 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 squattellhawker on the said road. 8. The petitions ale therefore disposed of only with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the Zonal Vending Comrnittee alongwith all the documents required by the Zonal Vending Cornmittee to assess the eligibilrty of the petitioners. The Zonal Vending Cornrnittee to decide the case of each of the petitioners within one rnonth of the petitioners' appearing before the Zonal Vending Comrnittee. The petitioners will not be entitled to squat/hu*k in any non hawking zone till then. The petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs' cM No.11552/2010 in W.P.(c) 5866i2010. CM No.11554/2010 in w.P.(c) 5867/2010" CM No.11556/2010 in W.P.(c) 5868/2010. CM No.11559/2010 in W.P.(C) 5870/2010. CM No.11561/2010 in W.P.(C) 587 rts63l20l0 s8721201 10 in W.P M No.11567120t0 in W.P 5874/2010. CM No.11569/2010 in W.P.(C) 5875/20L0. CM No.11572l2010 in W.P.(C) 5877/2010, CM No.11574/2010 in W.P.(C) 5879/2010. CM No.11576/20L0 in W.P.(C) 5880/2010. CM No.11578/2010 in W.P.(C) 5881/2010. CM No.11580/2010 in W.P.(C) 5882/2010. CM No.11582/20L0 in W.P.(C) 5883/20L0. CM No.l1584/2010 in W.P.(C) 5884/2010 ( all u/s 151 CPC for exemptions) Allowed subject to just exceptions. SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 06. M L0t