39 s-*INTIIEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDELHI + W.P.(C) 586612010 & CMNo'1155112010 (for stav) MD YAQUB ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Ndr'. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 40+ W.P.(C) 586712010 & CM No.1 1553 12010 (for stav) MANGAL VISHWAS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr' Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 4t+ W.P.(C) sB6B/2010 & CMNo.1155512010 (for stav) PREM WATI ""' Petitioner rhrough: H*iil:'l#;H. " Mr surnan Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advocates TI 1" 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.+ V'/.P.(C) 587012010 & CM No.11558 12010 (for stay) KHETRAPAL SAHU Through: 'Mr. Jivesh Tiwari Chauhan, Advocates. Versus ..... Petitioner & Mr. Suman { MCD Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 ou;;;#"tlnondent AND 43. + W.P.(C) s87ll20L0 & CM No. 1 1560 12010 (for stay) MADHU SUDHAN BHOMIK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD rhr.ough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat *J rr*llntsT, Sharan Singh, Advocates AND 44. + W.P.(C) s87212010 & CM No.1156212010 (for stay) JEEVAN DAS ..... Petitioner Through: N4r. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. 2t l0 MCD Versus .... ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Orn Sharan Singh, Advocates AND 45. + W.P.(C) 587312010 & CM No.11564 /2010 (for stay) RAVINDER SINGH ....' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: I\tk. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. AND 46. + W.P.(C) 587412010 & CM No.1 156612010 (for stay) VIKRAM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' IvIr. Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus ..... Respondent Thlough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 47.+ W.P.(C) 587 512010 & CM No. 1 1568 12010 (for stay) GYAN CHAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 3l MCD f' l./ a Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate' AND 49. + W.P.(C) s977l20l0 & CMNo.1157112010 (for stav) BAL BIR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & NIr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Ttu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND s0.+ W.P.(C) 587912010 & CM No.11573 /2010 (for stav) JAMAN SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Orn Sharan Singh, Advocates. AND 51. -! + w.P.(C) 5880/2010 & CM No.11575 12010 (for stay) MD.SALIM ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr. Suman Chauhan. Advocates. 4/ l2- ^) Versus MTINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate. AND 52. + V/.P.(C) 5881/2010 & CMNo.1157712010 (for stay) JADGISH SAHU ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. AND 53.+ W.P.(C) s88212010 & CM No.1157912010 (for stay) PAWAN DAS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &, Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHL.... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. AND 54. + W.P.(C) 5883/2010 & CM No.11581 12010 (for stay) 5t 13 KASHINATH ..... Petitioner . Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Ivk. Suman Chauhan. Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELIil ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. AND J3.+ W P.(C) s884/2010 & CM No.11583 12010 (for stay) SUKHDEV SARKAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER 06.09.20L0 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions clairn to be hawkers and further clairn to have applied to Zonal Vending Cornrnittee for allotnent of a ,-' hawking site. They seek protection fi'om dispossession fi'om their existing % 6/ (Y hawking sites till their representations before the Zonal Vending Cornmittee iu'e decided. The counsel for the petitioners besides referring to various orders of this Court wherein the possession of others, whose representations before the Zotal Vending Cornmittee are pending, has been protected, also relies on Patri Vyapur Mundul Delhi (Regd) Vd. M.C.D. Town HuIl (2009) 12 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 irnpleaded in all these petitions state that the alea from which the petitioners clairn to be hawking has been declared to be a non hawking zone. They fuither 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 verified by the Assistant Cornmissioner, Cenh'al Zone of the MCD stating that Guru Ravidas Marg fi'orn where petitioners clairn to be hawking / scluatting is a non hawking/squatting zone. 'a' 7l ls- 3. This Court undoubtedly has in several other matters 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 proteciion glanted by the Court will not enule 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 rnatters that owing to such orders being made by the Courts, the functioning of the ZonalVending 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 thern owing to the sarne having been occupied by some other persons whose eligibility is still to be deterrnined but whose possession/occupation was protected by the order of the Court. In these cilcurnstances, in subsequent otders, this Court has also clarified that the protection shall not be available if the site on which the petitioners a.re hawking / scluatting is allotted to sorne other person found eligible by the Zonal Vending Comrnittee. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot rely on the said orders. {- 8l I tA , 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 a non hawking / scluatting zo1e. 6. .Need is not felt to keep these petitions pending to resolve the said contoversy. The rights of the petitioners ale ultirnately to be decided by the zonal vending committee only. The petitioners have only given the Diary Nurnbers of the applications/representations stated to have been filed by thern before the Zonal Vending Cornmittee. The counsels for the respondent MCD point out that in WP(C) 588212010 the particulars of the petitioner are also vague. 7. Insofar-as the reliance on the Act aforesaid is concerned, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) and,3(2) thereof have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act. Section 4 disentitles from relief under Section 3 of the Act in respect of encroaclunent on public sffeet/land. Section 3(1Xb) refers only to scheme and orderly anangements for regulation of ur.ban stleet vendors in consonance with the National Policy for Urban St'eet Vendors and Hawkers. If under the said policy r 9t IT a particular. site is declared as non hawking zonq then the benefit of Section 3(1Xb) I 3(Z) would not be available to an unauthorized scluaffer'/hawker on the said road. g. The petitions ar€ therefore disposed of only with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the ZonalVending Cornmittee alongwith all the documents recluiled by the Zonal Vending Cornmittee to assess the eligibility of the petitioners. The zonaT vending cornmittee to.decide the case of each of the petitioners within one month of the petitioners' appearing before the ZonalVending Committee. The petitioners will not be entitled to scluat/trawk in any non hawking zone till then. The petitions ale disposed of No order as to costs' cM No.11552/2010 in w.P.(c) 5866/2010. cM No.11554/2010 in No.ltSSe/ZOtO in W'p'(O S86A/ZO1O' Cnn m(c) s870/2010.cM No.11561/2010 itt w.P.(c) sazuzoto. cM- s6sl20 w.P 1 No.l1 10 in 587 CM No.11 10 in rn 10. c .1157 10 in W.P w.l N s7612 s879120L LL s8412010 i Allowed SEPTEMBER M inW s88 w No w 151 RAJIV SAIIAI ENDLAW, J 0in ( rct