/ 39 $-*INTIIEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDELHI + W.P.(C) s86612010 & CM No' 1155 ll20l0 (for stav) MDYAQUB..Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLTNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 40+ W.P.(C) s867l2OIO & CM No' 1 1553 12010 (for stav) MANGAL VISHWAS ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. . Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 4T+ W.P.(C) 5868/2010 & CMNo.1155512010 (for stav) PREM WATI ""' Petitioner Ttu'ough: Mr' Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates Ll 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. + W.P.(C) s870/2010 & CM No.11558 12010 (for stav) KHETRAPAL SAHU . Petitioner \ Ttu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates' Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 43. + W.P.(C) s87Il20Io & CM No' 1 1560 12010 (for stav) MADHU SUDHAN BHOMIK ..... PEtitiONET Tlu'ough: Mr' Jivesh Tiwari & NIr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Had Om Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 44. + W.P.(C) sB72l20I0 & CM No.1 1562 12010 (for stav) JEEVAN DAS ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 2t IO Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advocates AND 45. + W.P.(C) s87312010 & CMNo'1156412010 (for stav) RAVINDER SINGH ...'. PEtitiONET Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: IMl. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 46. + W.P.(C) 587 4l2}l0 & CM No' 1 1566 12010 (for stav) VIKRAM SINGH ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Thlough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr" Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates A}ID 47.+ W.P.(C) s87 sl20\0 & CM No. 1 1568 12010 (for stav) ..... Petitioner GYAN CHAND rh'ough: Mr' Jivesh riwa'i & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 3t rl Versus MT]NICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... RESPONdENT Tlu'ough: iMr'. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 49. + W.P.(C) 587712010 & CM No' 1 1571 12010 (for stav) BAL BIR ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: lvlr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MI-]NICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' A.ND 50.+ W.P.(C) s87gl201r0 & CM No.11573 12010 (for stav) JAMAN SINGH ""' Petitioner Ttu'ough: Mr' Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Thlough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Orn Sharan Singh, Advocates. AND 51.+ W.P.(C) s880/2010 & CM No.11575 12010 (for stav) MD.SALIM ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' ivlr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. 4l )2_ Versus ML]NICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... RESPONdENT Tlu'ough: Mr' Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 52. + W.P.(C) 5381/2010 & CM No' 11577 12010 (for stav) JADGISH SAHU ""' Petitioner Through: Mr' Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPALCORPORATIONoFDELHI..'..Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 53.+ W.P.(C) s88212010 & CMNo.1157912010 (for stav) PAWAN DAS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr' Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 54. + W.P.(C) 5883/2010 & CMNo.11581 12010 (for stav) >l 55. + rE KASHINATH ..... Petitioner Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus Thlough: MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND W.P.(C) s88412010 & CMNo.ttsg:120t0 (for stav) ..... Petitioner Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus SUKI{DEV SARKAR Through: MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER % 06.09.2010 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions clairn to be hawkers and fiuttrer claim to have applied to zonal Vending cornrnittee for allotnent of a hawking site. They seek protection fi'om dispossession fi'om their existing 6t tY hawking sites till their representations before the Zonal Vending Commiuee are decided. The counsel for the petitioners besides refeffing to various orders of this Court wherein the possession of others, whose representations before the ZonalVending Cornmittee al'e pending, has been protected, also relies on Patri vyapar Mantlal Delhi (Regd) vd' M'C'D' Town HalI (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 impleaded in all these petitions state that the area fi'orn which the petitioners claim to be hawking has been declared to be a non hawking zorre. They fiIther 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 coutt a note dated 31't August, 2010 of the Licensing Inspector, central Zone, duly verified by the Assistant Comrnissioner, Cenhal Zone of the MCD stating that Guru Ravidas Marg fi'orn where petitioners claim to be hawking / scluatting is a non hawking/squatting zorre' il ) 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 Cornmittee. However, each of the said orders is on.the condition that the protection granted by the Court will not enure if the area where the petitioners wele hawking/squatting falls in a non hawking zQne' 4. It was also brought to the notice of this court in several such matters that owing to such orders being made by the courts, the functioning of the ZonalVending Committee is being affected inasmuch as the persons found eligible by the zonaTVending comrnittee and allotted a particular site are being deprived of theil sites so allotted to thern owing to the same having been occupied by some other pel'sons whose eligibility is still to be determined but whose possession/occupation was protected by the order of the Court. In these circurnstances, in subsequent orders, this Court has also clarified that the protection shall not be available if the site on which the petitioners zue hawking / squatting is allotted to sorne other person found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cornmittee. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot rely on the said orders. 8/ -t L( 5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that there are several other hawkers who are hawking on Guru Ravidas Marg and controverts the stand ofthe MCD of Guru Ravidas Marg being anon hawking / squatting zone. 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 Comrnittee only. The petitioners have only given the Diary Numbers of the applications/representations stated to have been filed by them before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee. The counsels for the respondent MCD point out that in WP(C) 588212010 the particulars of the petitioner ale 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 encroachment on public sheet/land. Section 3(1Xb) refers only to scheme and orderly arrangements for regulation of ur.ban sfieet vendors in consonance with the National Policy for Urban St'eet Vendors and Hawkers. If under the said policy 9t a particular site is declared as non hawking zolre, then the benefit of Section 3(1Xb) I 3(2) would not be available to an unauthorized squatter/hawker on the said road. 8. The petitions ar€ therefore disposed of only with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the zonalvending cornrnittee alongwith all the documents required by the Zonal Vending Cornmittee to assess the eligibility of the petitioners. The zonal vending comrnittee to decide the case of each of the petitioners within one month of the petitioners' appearing before the ZonalVending Cornrnittee. The petitioners will not be entitled to squat/hawk in any non hawking zone till then. ..; The'petitions are disposed of No order as to costs' 0i 0 w. w. rye 587 w o.1 P 0 w.P 10 No. 7120L w.P s87 rn lr.YI -ln o. 12010 in w N w.l 01 No.l1 L0 w.P rls7612010 w.P. s880 01 U20L No. s80/201 w.P N s82120 w.P. 1 s88 No. w.P Allowed su ust excePtrons. 0(alt 151 RAJ SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 06, M. rct