14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8641/2007 PRATAP SINGH & ANR. Petitioner Through Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Adv. versus D.D.A. & ORS. Respondent Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for DDA. Mr. Amit Paul, Adv. for the MCD. Ms. Amita Arora, Adv. for Ms. Meera Bhatia, Adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL ORDER % 10.11.2009 -y 1. This writ petition was filed originally by 21 persons seeking issuance of appropriate writ or direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority and the police authorities prohibiting them from displacing the petitioners from the place they were hawking in the Nehru Place area. 2. The respondents have contested the maintainability of the writ petition 0r inter alia on the ground that the petitioners have no legal right, title and interest to the site at which they were allegedly hawking. The specific counter stands filed by the MCD and the DDA to the effect that the petitioners stood removed and there was no hawking at Nehru Place. In addition, the MCD has filed an affidavit dated 2r' October, 2008 pointing out that Smt. Sheela Devi, Shri Gurmukh, Shri Madan Lai and Shri Sumeet Chand, who are petitioner nos.l4, 15, 16 & 17 respectively in this writ petition, were the only eligible 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 -2- 1^ tehbazari holders of the MCD. It is further submitted that they were allotted tehbazari sites in the year 2002 at East of Kailash and they had also taken physical possession of the allotted sites. The MCD has placed a copy of the allotment/possession letters relating to Shri Gurmukh and Shri Madan Lai dated 9''" July, 2002 and the letter dated 23'" May, 2002 in respect of Sumeet Chand on record. So far as the remaining petitioners were concerned, it is contended that they were unauthorised vendors in the area. 3. It is to be noted that by the order dated 13'" January, 2009, the writ petition qua the other petitioners was also dismissed and consideration of the present matter was confined to these four petitioners alone. 4. The MCD has also taken a stand that in the year 2003, the area of Nehru place was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Development Authority. 5. Perusal of the record of the writ petition would show that the writ petitioners had failed to disclose the material facts of allotment of the tehbazari to the petitioner nos.l4 to 17 in the year 2002 by the MCD in the ir writ petition. In this background, by the order dated 24''^ August, 2009, the court noticed the objection of the respondents with regard to the concealment of the material facts by these petitioners in the writ petition which was also unexplained. The matter was adjourned to today only to enable the learned counsel for the petitioners to take instructions with regard to the subject matter of the writ petition. 6. Affidavits have been filed by the petitioner nos.l4 to 17 contending that /(, - 3 - they were not put in possession of the tehbazari sites at East of Kailash on account of certain objections by the Residential Welfare Association. Whatever be the position,the fact that the personswho were actuallyallottedsites in the year 2002 was by itselfmaterialfact which had bearing on the questionwhich has been raised. The writ petitioners have failed to even remotely suggest such allotment in the writ petition and asserted right and claim over alleged hawking sites in the Nehru Place area. Apart from the concealmentof the material facts, it, therefore, remains an admitted position that the petitioners •-V were only practicingunregulatedhawking in the Nehru Place area and in the face of the allotment of the sites in East of Kailash, they had no legal rights whatsoever to continue to hawk in.the Nehru Place area. 7. Mr. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that these petitionersare poor hawkersand submitsthat they are entitledto continueto hawk in the Nehru Place area in view of the judgment dated 17^^ April, 2009 rendered in LPA No.766/2008 entitled Manushi Sanqathan. Delhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority St Ors. 8. Perusal of the judgment would show that this appeal was filed against the judgmentdated 4"^ September, 2008 ofthe learned SingleJudge dismissing the writ petition relating to a pilot project for regulated hawking which was effectuated by the appellant which was an NGO in conjunction with the statutory authorities. The pilot project for 67 hawking sites was reduced to hawkingsites in the Nehru Place area which was regulatedby the NGO as well as by the authorities. For the reasonthat the DDA was arbitrarilyremoving - 4 - hawkers who were operating under the pilot project and wj^ were complying with the imposed terms without compliance of principles of natural justice in a post haste manner and without following any of the guidelines of the Supreme Court, the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 and the guidelines laid down under the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors and the scheme of the MCD for Squatters/Hawkers, 2007. In this view of the matter, the court had directed the DDA to continue with the pilot project and had permitted the stay of only 67 vendors to hawk in the area which was demarcated by the DDA prior to their removal on 19'" April, 2008. 9. My attention is drawn, however, to the observations in para 40 of the judgment whereby the Division Bench left open the question as to whether Nehru Place should be declared a no hawking zone and the question of demarcating non-vending areas decided by the DDA after making reference to the Ward Vending Committee and on the basis of the directions issued by the Supreme Court and in terms of the scheme of the MCD. It is to be noted that the Division Bench had also directed that if any of the hawkers had also opted for a new site, they would not be entitled for the benefit of the order. 10. It requires to be borne in mind in the instant case that the scheme of making allocation of tehbazari is worked out by the MCD and the DDA is only the land owning agency. 11. It is stated by Mr. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel for the DDA that a considered decision has been taken at the level of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in terms of the directions made in the judgment dated 17'*^ April, 2009 1 ] r - 5 - that Nehru Place is a no hawl<ingzone. This decision,however,would have no bearingin any case on the outconneof the presentwrit petition. 12. In view of the directions made by the Division Bench, the petitioners have been allottedtehbazarirights in the East of Kailash area and would have no right to hawk in the Nehru Place area and are not entitledto any relief in this petition. 13. The petitionerswere admittedlyfound entitledto allotmentsof hawking sites in 2002. Asubmissionis made on behalfof the petitionersthat they were not given possessionof the sites in East of Kailash, it shall be open for the petitionernos.l4 to 17 to approach the concerned authoritiesincluding the MCD or the Zonal VendingCommitteSewith regardto the tehbazarisites which were allottedto them in the year 2002 or for any other availablesites. The petitioners grievance with regard to the 2002 sites be considered by the authorities. In case the earlier allotted sites are not available, these four petitionersshall be consideredfor allotmentunderany appropriatescheme. In case these petitionersare aggrievedby the decisionwhich is taken, it shall be open for the petitionersto assailthe same by appropriateproceedings. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. t git/mittaCT' NOVEMBER 10, 2009 f 't 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ^ * + W.P.(C) 8641/2007 PRATAP SINGH & ANR. Petitioner Through Mr. B.L. Waii, Mr. Suraj Kumar and Mr. Sarul Jain, Adv. versus D.D.A. & ORS. Respondent Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Ravi Bassi, Adv. for MCD Ms. Amita Arora for Ms. Meera Bhatia, Adv. for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL ORDER % 11.12.2009 CM No.15592/2009 The prayer made in this application praying for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to hawk at the site in Nehru Place is the same prayer which was made in the writ petition. Such prayer stands rejected by the order passed on 10'^'^ November, 2009 when the writ petition was rejected. Counsel for the petitioner contends that despite the directions made on lO*^*" November, 2009, the respondents are not considering the representation made by petitioner nos. 14 to 17. Mr. Ravi Bassi who represents the MCD in other cases and is present in court has been directed to appear in the present V • r 1^ matter. It is accordingly directed that the respondents shall ensure that the representation of the petitioner made pursuant to the order dated 10^'' November, 2009 is positively considered and a view taken thereon within a period of six weeks from today. This application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti to parties. Gl A MITTALJ DECEMBER 11, 2009 kr