.V. 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) SHER MOHD Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. MOD & ANR. Versus Respondents Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R- 1 MOD. Mr. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 41+ W.P.(C) 5518/2010 & CMNo.10863/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) NAGINA Petitioner MCD & ANR. Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus Respondents Thi'ough: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R- 1 MCD. Ml". 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 Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus MCD & ANR. Respondents Thi-ough: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R- IMCD. Mf. 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 Through: Mr. Jitender Kumai", Adv. Versus MCD & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. R-1 MCD with Mr. Smender 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 Through: Mi". Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus MCD & ANR. Respondents 2/8 o 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 46+ W.P.(C) 5523/2010 & CM No. 10867/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) MEENA Petitioner Through: JVIi". Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus MCD & ANR. ..... 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.P.(C) 5524/2010 & CM No. 10868/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) AKRAM MANSOORI. Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Kumai", Adv. Versus MCD & ANR. Respondents Thorough: 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 AND 48+ W.P.(C) 5529/2010 & CM No. 10873/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) NURRA Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus MCD & ANR. Respondents Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R- IMCD. Mh\ Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 49+ W.P.(C) 5530/2010 & CM No. 10874/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) ILIYAS Petitioner Thr ough: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. Versus MCD & ANR. 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. AND 50+ W.P.(C) 5531/2010 & CM No. 10875/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) MUKHTHYARI DEVI Petitioner Through: Mi". Jitender Kumar, Adv. 4/8 Versus MCD & ANR. Respondents Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R- IMCD. Ml". Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for R-2. AND 51+ W.P.(C) 5532/2010 & CM No. 10876/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) YUSUF ALI Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. MCD & ANR. 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 petitioners claim to be residents of Y Block of J.J.R. Camp, Okhla Phase-Il, T-Huts, New Delhi. The petitioners claim to be in possession for the last fifteen years and also claim to have applied to the MCD for tehbazaii rights. The only relief claimed in the writ petitions is 5/8 to restrain the MCD from dispossessing the petitioners from then- respective Jhuggi Jhopri and places of hawking. 2. The counsel for the respondent MCD appeai-ing on advance notice states that the action for demolition of the said Jhuggis was taken as far back as on 30^'^ April, 2010 and all the Jhuggis removed. The counsel for the respondent MCD has handed over in Comt the letters dated 5*'^ May, 2010 and 9"' April, 2010 of the concemed Zone in this regard as well as the photogi-aphs stated to have been taken on 14^'' August, 2010 showing that no Jhuggi exists on site. It is further contended that none of the petitioners have along with petitions filed any document to show that any of them as on date is in possession. It is contended that the petitioners by filmg these petitions want to re-encroach upon the public land 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 petitioners only states that his instructions are that the petitioners are still in possession. He is otherwise unable to confrovert 6/8 7 that action for removal was taken on 30^'' April, 2010 or the photographs. 4. The petitioners' averments in the wiit petitions are vague and inconsistent. The petitioners have not shown any docmnent that they were at any time granted any tehbazari rights or have made any application to the Vending Conunittee constituted under the National Urban Vending Policy for allotment of a tehbazaii site. The documents filed with some of the writ petitions show that the petitioners were hawking at sites different from the sites from where dispossession is sought to be restrained. The letter dated 9^'' April, 2010 (supra) indicates that the encroachment? were in the nature of junk material/kabaiie^hops/waste material dumps hazardous to the lives of residents/workers of industrial area. 5. The petitioners have also made references to their claims 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 claun, if any could be made, has also not been made a party. Snnilarly, the Urban Shelter hnprovement Board constituted vide Delhi Urban Shelter 7/8 Improvement Board Act, 2010 has 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 1 bs.. RA 2010 SAHAIENDLAW, J 8/8