1 x I to 3$- IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) I29sl20r7 GHASI RAM fr MCD AND ORS 2+ w.P.(c) I302l20rI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Awnish Kumar & Mr. Raghav P., Advocates. Versus rhrough: Mr. Dev P. Bhardw* ;x,:tfl?t-tlt; 3 MCD. Mr. N. Wazirt, Adv. with Ms. Zeenat ' Masoodi, Adv. for R-2. AND a- alJ-r VED PRAKASH & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: IMr. Awnish Kumar & Mr. Raghav P., Advocates. Versus MCD AND ORS ""' ResPondents Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Adv' for R-l & 3 MCD. \4r. N. Waziri, Adv. with Ms. Zeenat Masoodi. Adv. for R-2. AND w.P.(c) r303t2orr KANHAIYA ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Awnish Kumar & Mr. Raghav P., Advocates. Versus MCD AND ORS ""' ResPondents Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-l & 3 MCD Us Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified % 1. Mr. N. Waztr, Adv. with Ms. Zeenat Masoodi, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJTV SAIIAI ENDLAW ORDER 14.03.201L The petitioners in each of these writ petitions claim to have been squatting and earning their livelihood frbm the pavement abutting the Community Hall, L-Block, Green Park Extension, New Delhi for the last over 30 years. Their kiosks/stalls were demolished by the respondent MCD 'on 30th November, 2010. They have filed these writ petitions seeking mandamus to the respondent MCD to re-construct their kiosks/stalls and for prohibiting respondent MCD and Police from interfering with the petitioners carrying on their frade from the said site. 2. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners whether the petitioners have applied to the Vending Committee constituted under the National Policy on Urban Sfteet Vendors. The counsel states that the petitioners are illiterate and have no knowledge in this regard. He states that applications for tehbozari sites have been made to the respondent MCD only. 3. The petitioners through counsel are now informed that if they claim to t fr I 2t3 \ E be eligible to allotrnent of a tehbazari site, they ough! to apply to the Zonal Vending Committee. Without the petitioners even applying to the Zonal Vending Committee, their claims as made in these writ petitions, cannot be adjudicated. 4. The petitioners have not disclosed any right to carryr on their trade from the location aforesaid, for this Court to issue mandamus to the respondent MCD as directed. 5. The counsel for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice 'states that the petitioners were unauthorized squatters and have been removed by the respondent MCD in performance of its obligatory functions to keep the sheets and pavements free from encroachers.. 6. As far as the claim of the petitioners for compensation for loss caused by the demolition is concerned, the petitioners shall be entitled to seek remedies therefor. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. CM No.2734l2011 in W.P.(C) No.1302/2011 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. SAHAI ENDLAW. J MARCH l4,20ll/bs.. 3t3 7- L. 'tt