40-41 & 43 to 51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 40+ W.P.(C) 5516/2010 & CM No.10862/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) SHERMOHD • Petitioner Tlyough; Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. MCD&ANR. Versus Respondents Thiough: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R- IMCD. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 41+ W.P,(e) 5518/2010 & CM No. 10863/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) NAGINA MCD&ANR. Petitioner Through; Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus Respondents Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R- 1 MCD. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 43+ W.P.(C) 5520/2010 & CM No.10864/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) OMKAR GUPTA Petitioner 1/8 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 € MCD & ANR. '7^ Thi-ough: Mi". JitenderKumai',Adv. Versus Respondents Through: Ms. Maasi Gupta, Advocatefor R- IMCD. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 44+ W.P.(C)5521/2010&CM No.10865/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) PRAMOD KUMAR Petitioner Thi'ough; Mi". Jitender Kumar, Adv. MCD & ANR. Versus Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. R-1 MCD with Mr. Surender Singh, Rent Collector. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 45+.. W.P.(C)5522/2010& CM No.10866/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) ALIM Petitioner Thi'ough: Mi". Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus MCD & ANR. Respondents 2/8 Tkrough: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. R-1 MCD with Mr. Surender Singh, Rent Collector. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 46+ W.P..(C)5523/2010&CM No.10867/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) MEENA ' MCD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr. JitenderKumar, Adv. Versus Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh , Gupta, Adv. R-1 MCD with Mr. Surender Singh, Rent Collector. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 47+' W 5524/2010 & CM,No.10868/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) AKRAM MANSOORI Petitioner MCD & ANR. Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. R-1 MCD with Mr. Surender Singh, Rent Collector. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. 3/8 w U AND 48+ W.P.(C)5529/2010& CM No.10873/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) NURRA , MCD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus Respondents Thiough; Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R- 1 MCD. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 49+ W.P.(C)5530/201,0& CM No.10874/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) ILIYAS MCD & ANR. Petitioner Thiough: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. R-1 MCD with Mr. Surender Singh, Rent Collector. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 50+ W.P.(C)5531/2010& CMNo.10875/2010(u/S 151 CPCfor stay) MUKHTHYARI DEVI Petitioner Thiough: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. 4/8 w MCD & ANR. 5 Versus Respondents Through: Ms. MansiGupta, Advocatefor R- 1 MCD. Ml". Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 51+ W,.P.(C)5532/2010& CMNo.10876/2010(u/S 151 CPCfor stay) YUSUFALI MCD & ANR. Petitioner Thi'ough: Mr. Jitender Kumai",Adv. Versus Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. R-1 MCD with Ml". Surender Singh, Rent Collector. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW ORDER % 16.08.2010 1. All the petitionersclaimto be residentsof Y BlockofJ.J.R. Camp, Okhla Phase-II, T-Huts, New Delhi. The petitioners claim to be in possessionfor the last fifteenyears and also clannto have appliedto the MCD for tehbazaii rights. The only relief claimed in the wiit petitions is 5/8 • -'f * r L to restrain the MCD from dispossessing the petitioners from their respectiveIhuggi Jhopriandplacesof hawking. 2. The counsel for the respondentMCD appearingon advancenotice states that the action for demolition of the said Jhuggis was tal^en as far back as on 30^'^ April, 2010 and all the Jhuggisremoved.The counselfor the respondentMCD has handedover in Courtthe lettersdated 5^'' May, 2010 and 9^'' April, 2010 ofthe concernedZone in this regard as well as the photographsstatedto have been taken on 14^'^ August,2010 showing that no Jhuggi exists on site. It is further contended that none of the petitionershave along with petitionsfiled any documentto showthat any of them as on date is in possession.It is contendedthat the petitionersby filiiig these petitionswant to re-encroachupon the publicland on which they had put up their Jhuggis & Jhopris and from which they have been removed. It is contended that the petitions are liable to be dismissed on ground of conceahnent alone. 3. The counsel for petitionersonly states that his instiuctions are that the petitionersare still in possession.He is otherwiseunable to conti'overt 6/8 7 that actionfor removalwas taken on30^''April,2010 orthe photographs. 4. The petitioners' averaients in the wiit petitions ai^e vague and inconsistent. The petitionershave not shown any document that they were at any time granted any tehbazari rights or have made any applicationto the Vending Committee constitutedunder the National Urban VendingPolicy for allotmentof a tehbazarisite. The documents filed with some of the writ petitions show that the petitioners were hawking at sites different from the sites from where dispossessionis soughtto be resti'ained.The letterdated 9^'' April, 2010 (supra)indicates that,the encroaclunents were in the nature of junk material/kabaiies shops/wastematerial dumps hazardousto the lives of residents/workers of industrial ai ea. 5. The petitionershave also made referencesto their clanns for re location but as aforesaid no prayer in this respect has been made. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi under whose re-location policy such claim, if any could be made, has also not been made a party. Similarly, the Urban Shelter Improvement Board constituted vide Delhi Urban Shelter 7/8 # ' ^ <5^ ; 0,: p Improvement Board Act, 2010 lias also not been impleaded as a party. 6. Under the circumstances, no case for entertaining the writ petitions is made out. The writ petitions are dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be given Dasti. AUGUST 16,20gi0 bs.. RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J 8/8