39 $-*INTHEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDELHI + W.P.(C) s86612010 & CM No.1155 ll20l0 (for stav) MD YAQUB ""' Petitioner Through: Mr' Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 40+ W.P.(C) 586712010 & CM No.11553 /2010 (for stav) ..... Petitioner ' MANGAL vISHwASough: Mr' Jivesh riwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. - Versus MCD "" ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate' AND 4I+ W.P.(C) s868/2010 & CMNo.1155512010 (for stav) PREM WATI Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advocates II 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 AND 42.+ W.P.(C) s87012010 & CM No.l1558 12010 (for stav) KHETRAPAL SAHU ""' Petitioner Through: Mr' Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates' Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 43. + W.P.(C) ss7 tl20l0 & CM No. 1 1560 12010 (for stav) MADHU SUDHAN BHOMIK ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Orn Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 44. + W.P.(C) s87212010 & CM No.11562 12010 (for stav) JEEVAN DAS "" Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Sunan Chauhan, Advocates. 2l I I Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advocates AND 45. + W.P.(C) 587312010 & CM No.11564 12010 (for stav) RAVINDER SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ir&. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 46. + W.P.(C) s87 412010 & CM No. 1 1566 120t0 (for stav) VIKRAM SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and IW' Hari Orn Sharan Singh, Advocates AND 47.+ W.P.(C) s87 sl2}IO & CM No. 1 1568 12010 (for stav) GYAN CHAND ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 3l Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 49. + W.P.(C) 587712010 & CM No.11571 120L0 (for stav) BAL BIR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Surnan . Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ivfi'. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND s0.+ W.P.(C) s87gl20I0 & CM No.1 1573 12010 (for stav) JAMAN SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Orn Sharan Singh, Advocates. AND 51.+ w.P.(C) 5SS0/i010 & cMNo.1157512010 (for stav) MD.SALIM ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 4l Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 52. + W.P.(C) 5881/2010 & CM No.11577 12010 (for stav) JADGISH SAHU ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: ld-r. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ir4r'. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 53.+ W.P.(C) s882/2010 & CM No.l 157912010 (for stav) PAWAN DAS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr' Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' A.ND 54. + W.P.(C) 5883/2010 & CM No.l1581 /2010 (for stav) )l KASHINATH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman ' Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 55.+ W.P.(C) s884120t0 & CM No.11583 12010 (for stav) SUKHDEV SARKAR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAIIAI ENDLAW ORDER oA 06.09.2010 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions claim to be hawkers and further clairn to have applied to Zonal Vending Cornrnittee for allof,nent of a hawking site. They seek protection fi'om dispossession fi'om their existing 6t hawking sites till theil representations before the Zonal Vending Cornmittee are decided. The counsel for the petitioners besides referring to various orders of this Court wherein the possession of others, whose representations before the ZonalVending Comrniffee ale pending, has been protected, also relies on Patri Vyapur Mandal Delhi (Regd) Vd. M.C-D. Town HaIl (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 claim to be hawking has been declared to be a non hawking zone. They fiuther 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 Cornmissioner, Central Zone of the MCD stating that Guru Ravidas Marg frorn where petitioners clairn to be hawking / squatting is a non hawking/scluatting zone. tl 3. This Court undoubtedly has in severai 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 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 Couts, the functioning of the Zonal Vending Comrnittee is being affected inasrnuch as the persons found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cornmittee and allotted a particular site ale bettrg deprived of their sites so allotted to thern owing to the salne having been occupied by sorne other persons whose eligibility is still to be deterrnined but whose possession/occupation was protected by the order of the C6urt. 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 / scluatting is allotted to sorne other person found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cormnittee. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot relv on the said orders. BI 5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that there are several other hawkers who ale hawking on Guru Ravidas Marg and controverts the stand of the MCD of Guru Ravidas Marg being anon hawking / squatting zone. 6. Need is not felt to keep these petitions pending to resolve the said confioversy. The rights of the petitioners are ultirnately to be decided by the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee only. The petitioners have only given the Diary Nurnbers 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)5882120I0 the particulars of the petitioner are also vague. 7. Insofal as the reliance on the Act aforesaid is concerned, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) afi3Q) 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 encroachment on public sh'eeVland. Section 3(1Xb) refers only to scheme and orderly an'angements for regulation of ulban street vendors in consonance with the National Policy for Urban Street Vendors and Hawkers. If under the said policy 9t a particular site is declared as non hawking zone, then the benefit of Section 3(1Xb) I 3(2) would not be available to an unauthorized squatter'/trawker on the said road. 8. The petitions are therefore disposed of only with the direction to the petitioners to appeal before the Zonal Vending Comrnittee alongwith all the docurnents recluired by the Zonal Vending Comrnittee to assess the eligibility of the petitioners. The Zonal Vending Cornrnittee to decide the case of each of the petitioners within one month of the petitioners' appearing before the Zonal Vending Comrnittee. The petitioners will not be entitled to squat/trawk 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) 5866/20L0. CM No.1,1554/2010 in W.P.(C) 5867/2010. CM No.11556/20L0 in W.P.(C) 5868/2010. CM No.11559/2010 in W.P.(C) 5870/2010. CM No.11561/2010 in W.P.(C) 5871/2010. CM No.11563/2010 in W.P.(C) 5872/2010. CM No.11565/20L0 in W.P.(C) 5873/2010. CM No.11567/2010 in W.P.(C) 5874/2010. CM No.l1569/20L0 in W.P.(C) 5875/2010. CM No.11,572l20l0 in W.P.(C) 5877/2010. CM No.11574l2010 in W.P.(C) 5879/2010. CM No.11576/20L0 in W.P.(C) 5880/201.0. CM No.11578/2010 in W.P.(C) 588L/20L0. CM No.11580/2010 in W.P.(C) 5882/2010. CM No.11582/2010 in W.P.(C) 5883/2010. CM No.11584/2010 in W.P.(C) 5884/2010 ( all u/s 151 CPC for exemntions) Allowed subi exceptrons. RAJrV SArfAr ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 06. M rc/