il' V \ 41to46$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)6097/2010&CM No.12034/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) MOHD. HAYAT PeMoner Through; Mi-. Bharat B. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Indra Sawlmey&im. Lakshay Sawhney, Advocates Versus NDMC&ORS Respondents Thiough; Ms. MadhuTewatia &Ms. SidhiArora, V Advocates for R-1-/NDMC. Ml-. Anjum Javed & Mr. Ali Afser, Advocates for R-3 & R-4. AND W.P.(C)6099/2010&CMNo.12036/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) RAJESHGUPTA Petitioner Tluough: Mr. Bhaiat B. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Indi-aSawhney&mi-. Lakshay Sawhney, Advocates Versus NDMC&ORS .....Respondents Thi'ough: Ms. MadhuTewatia &Ms. Sidhii^ora. Advocates for R-l/NDMC. Ml-. Anjum Javed & Mi-. Ali Afser, Advocates for R-3 & R-4. AND 1/6 - + 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 + + W.P.(C)6100/2010&CM No.12037/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) VUAY GUPTA Petitioner Through: Mi". Bharat B. Sawhney, Sr; Advocate with Ms. IndraSawhney&iot. Lakshay Sawhney, Advocates Versus NDMC&ORS Respondeiits Through: Ms. MadliuTewatia &Ms. SidhiArora, Advocates for R-l/NDMC. Mr.- Anjum Javed & Mi". Ali Afser, Advocates for R-3 & R-4. AND W.P.(C)6102/2010&CMNo.12040/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) • ISLAMUDDIN Thi'ough; Mi". Bhaiat B. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Indi-aSawhney&im. Lakshay Sawhney, Advocates Versus NDMC&OHTERS Respondents Through: Ms. MadhuTewatia &Ms. SidhiAr'ora, Advocates for R-l/NDMC. Ml-. Anjum Javed & Mr. Ali Afser, Advocates for R-3 & R-4. AND + W.P.(C)6103/2010&CMNo.12041/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) SANTOSHKUMAR Petitioner • Through: Mi". Bhaiat B. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Indi-aSawhney&mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Advocates 2/6 + Versus NDMC&ORS Respondents Tkrough: Ms. MadhuTewatia &Ms. SidhiArora, Advocates for R-l/NDMC. Ml-. Anjuin Javed & Mi*. Ali Afser, Advocates for R-3 & R-4. AND W.P.(C)6109/2010&CMNo.12045/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) HAKIMSINGH Petitioner Through: Mi". Bharat B. Sawhney, Sr; Advocate with Ms. IndraSawhney&mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Advocates Versus N.D.M.C.&OTHERS Respondents Through: Ms. MadhuTewatia &Ms. SidhiArora, Advocates for R-l/NDMC. Ml". Anjum Javed & Mr. Ali Afser, Advocates for R-3 & R-4 CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICERAJTV^SAHAIENDLAW ORDER 09.09.2010 1. The petitioners claim to be hawking fi'om sites around Mdian Oil Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi and that their applications ai'e pending considerationbefore the Zonal Vending Committee constitutedunder the National Policy on Urban Sti-eet Vendors, 200^. The Zonal Vending Committeeand the AppellateTribunalconstitutedunder the said Policyhave grantedorderofstatusquo in favourofthepetitioners. Thesepetitionshave 3/6 V been filed contendingthat notwithstandingthe said order of status quo, the petitionersare being distui-bed. It is urged that the respondentno.1NDMC which is bound by the orders of status quo and which has also given an affidavitbeforethe SupremeCourtto abideby the said orders,is now seeking the assistanceof the police authoritiesfor distuibing the activities of the petitioners. As such the pohce authorities have been iinpleaded as the respondents3 &4 mthe presentpetitions and orders restrainingthem also fiom disturbmgthe petitionersaie sought. counsel for the respondent no.l NDMC appealing on advance noticeadmitsthatan affidavithas beenfiledbeforethe SupremeCourtto abide ^ by the order of status quo issued by the Zonal Vending Committee and AppellateTribunal.The counselfor the petitionershoweverpointsout thatthe petitionersai'e squattingand hawking in Non-HawkingZone and from sites whichhavenot beenidentifiedas hawkmgsites. It is furthercontendedthatthe petitionersaie not even eligibleunderthe TharejaCoimnitteeReportand the oiders ofstatus quo issued by the Courts in other mattersai'e comingin the way of the hawkers found eligible by the Zonal Vending Coimnitteeand allottedapaiticularsite, occupyingthe said allottedsite owing to such sites bemg occupied by hawkers whose eligibilityis still to be deteiininedbut whoseoccupationisprotectedunderthe ordersofthe Courts. The seniorcounselfor the petitionersof coui'secontfovertseach ofthe aforesaid contentions. '4/6 4. In view ofthe difficultiesexpressedby counselfor the respondentno.1 NDMC, this Court in other similai" matters has been directing the Zonal Vendmg Committeeto decide the applicationsof such hawkersin specified time. 5. Though the counsel for respondentno.l NDMC also contendsthat the petitionerswere not evenhawking/ squattingfiom sites with respectto which protectionis claimed,whenordersofstatusquo wereissuedbyZonalVending Coimnitteeand the AppellateTribunal,but in view of the affidavitfiled by respondentno.1NDMC before SupremeCouitto abide by the said ordersof statusquo, the saidpleaisnow not availableto respondentno.1NDMC. The no.l respondent NDMC is bound to maintain the status quo i.e. of not disturbingthe petitioners,till the applicationsofpetitionersto Zonal Vending Committeeare decided. The said ordersofSupremeCourtcannotbe defeated by the respondent no.l NDMC by instead of acting itself, having the petitionersremovedthi'oughthe agencyofpolice. 6. The petitionsare thereforedisposedofwith the diiectionto the Zonal VendmgCoimnitteeto decidethe applicationsofeachofthe petitioner/within one month oftoday. The petitionersshall have protectiontill then only fi:om the respondentno.l NDMC as well as fiom the police authorities. The petitionersshallhoweverneitherexpandtheirare^%orindulgein any suchact whichmaybe anuisanceto the passersbyor visitorsand shallmaintainorderly and hygienic conditionsand if not foundeligibleby the ZonalVending 5/6 Committeeor uponbeingfoundeligibleand allottedthe siteby ZonalVending Coimnittee,mimediatelyremovethemselvesfrom the said site. No orderas to costs. 7. Dastiundersignatureofthe CourtMasterto the counselfor theparties. SEPTEMBEROl^, 2010 gsr RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J 6/6