8 39 $-,FINTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI + W.P.(C) s866l2OIO & CM No.l155 ll20l0 (for stav) MD YAQUB ""' Petitioner Through: lvlr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MTINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate' AND 40+ W.P.(C) s867/2010 & CMNo.1155312010 (for stav) MANGAL VISHWAS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate' AND 4l+ W.P.(C) 5868/2010 & CMNo.1155512010 (for stav) PREM WATI ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates U 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 q I AND 42.+ W.P.(C) 5870120t0 & CM No' 1 1558 12010 (for stav) KHETRAPAL SAHU ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 43. + W.P.(C) s87Il20I0 & CMNo'l156012010 (for stav) MADHU SUDHAN BHOMIK ""' Petitioner Through: M'. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and I\4r' Hari Orn Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 44. + W.P.(C) s87212010 & CM No.11562 12010 (for stav) JEEVAN DAS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates 2l /G, Versus MCD ..... ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Orn Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 45. + V/.P.(C) 587312010 & CM No.1156412010 (for stav) RAVINDER SINGH ..... PEtitiONET Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MuqtcPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. AND 46. + W.P j(C) 587 412010 & CM No. 1 1566 12010 (for stay) VIKRAM SINGH ..... PEtitiONET Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ..." ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Om Sharan 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 l1 Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Tlu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 49. + W.P.(C) s877l2OIO & CM No' 11571 12010 (for stav) BAL BIR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MTINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' 50.+ W.P.(C) s}7gl2OIO & CM No' 11573 12010 (for stav) JAMAN SINGH ; ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Orn Shalan Singh, Advocates. AND 5L. + W.P.(C) s880/2010 & CMNo.1157512010 (for stav) MD.SALIM """ Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates 4/ )?- Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. AND 52. + W.P.(C) 5881/2010 & CM No.11577 12010 (for stav) JADGISH SAHU ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. AND JJ.+ V/.P.(C) s882l20l} & CM No.1157912010 (for stav) PAWAN DAS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Ttu'ough: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. AND 54. + W.P.(C) s883/2010 & CMNo.1158112010 (for stav) t3 KASHINATH ..... Petitioner Through: tvft. Jivesh Tiwari & IvIr. Surnan Chauhan. Advocates. Versus MTJNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. AND 55.+ W.P.(C) 588412010 & CM No.11583 12010 (for stay) SUKHDEV SARKAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER 'h [ 06.09.20L0 a 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions clairn to be hawkers and further clairn to have applied to Zonal Vending Cornmittee for allotrnent of a hawking site. They seek protection fi'om dispossession fi'om theil existing 6t IY hawking sites till their representations before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee are decided. The counsel for the petitioners besides referring to various orders of this Court wherein the possession of others, whose representations before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee il'e pending, has been protected, also relies on Patri Vyapar Mandal Delhi (Regd) Vd. M.C.D. Town Hall (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 eflect to. 2. The counsels for MCD, the sole respondent impleaded in all these petitions state that the area fi'om which the petitioners claim to be hawking has been declared to be a non hawking zorre. They ftuther 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 Comrnissioner, Central Zone of the MCD stating that Guru Ravidas Marg frorn where petitioners clairn to be hawking / squatting is a non hawking/squatting zone. 7t /5- 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 Cornmittee. However, each of the said orders is on the condition that the protection granted by the Court will not emre if the area where the petitioners were hawking/scluatting 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 rnade by the Courts, the functioning of the Zonal Vending Cornmittee is being affected inasmuch as the pelsons found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee and allotted a particulal site are being deprived of their sites so allotted to thern owing to the sarne having been occupied by sorne other persons whose eligibilrty is still to be determined but whose possession/occupation was protected by the order of the Court. In these circumstances, in subsequent otders, this Court has also clarified that the protection shall not be available if the site on which the petitioners are hawking / squatting is allotted to sorne other pelson found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cornmittee. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot rely on the said orders. fr a 8/ t{ 5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that there ale several other hawkers who ale hawking on Guru Ravidas Malg and controverts the stand of the MCD of Guru Ravidas Marg being anon hawking / squatting zorre. 6. Need is not felt to keep these petitions pending to resolve the said confioversy. The rights of the petitioners ale ultirnately to be decided by the Zonal Vending Comrnittee only. The petitionefs 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 a 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 fi'om relief under Section 3 of the Act in respect of encroacllnent on public street/land. Section 3(1Xb) refers only to scheme and orderly an'angements for regulation of urban sfi'eet vendors in consonance with the National Policy for Urban St'eet Vendors and Hawkers. If under the said policy 9l )T a particulal site is declared as non hawking zone, then the benefit of Section 3(1Xb) I 3(2) would not be available to an unauthorized squatterlhawker on the said road. 8. The petitions are therefore disposed of only with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the Zona| Vending Cornrnittee 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 rnonth of the petitioners' appearing before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee. The petitioners will not be entitled to scluat/hawk in any non hawking zone till then. The petitions are disposed of No order as to costs. CM No.11552/20L0 in W.P.(O 5866/20L0" CM No.11,554/2010 in s86712010 0inW No.11559/2010 in W.P.(C) 5870/2010. CM No.11561/2010 in W.P.(C) 587112010. CM No.11563/2010 in W No.11565/2010 in W.P.(C) 5873/2010. CM No.11567/2010 in W.P.(C) 5874/20L0. CM No.11569/2010 in W.P.(C) 5875/2010. CM No.11572l2010 in W.P.(C) 5877/2010. CM No.11574/2010 in W.P.(C) 5879/2010. CM No.l1576/2010 in W.P.(C) 5880/2010. CM No.11578/2010 in W;P.(C) 5881/201.0. CM No.11580/20L0 in W.P.(C) 5882/20L0. CM No.I1582/2010 in W.P.(C) 5883/20L0. CM No.11584/2010 in W.P.(C) 5884/2010 ( all u/s 151 CPC for exemptions) Allowed subi just exceptions. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER M 2010 rc/