9. 50$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5570/2010 & CMNo.10955/2010 (ii/S 151 CPC for stay) RAJUJAISWAL, ' Petitioner Through: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Mukesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates AND 51 + W.P.(C) 5571/2010 & CM No. 10957/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) RAJA RAM Petitioner Through: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Mukesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates AND 52 + W.P.(C) 5572/2010 & CM No.10959/2010 (ii/S 151 CPC for stay) CHAND Petitioner Tlirough: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Mukesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates Page 1 of 7 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 '•N< AND 53 + W.P.(C)5573/2010& CMNo.10961/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) RAJPAL SINGH Petitioner Tliroiigh: Ms. Suman Chaulian & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Through; Mr. Mukesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates AND 54 + W.P.(C)5574/2010& CM No.10963/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) BHAGVANTA Petitioner Tlirough: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate AND 55 + W.P.(C)5575/2010& CMNo.10965/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) MAHESH CHAND Petitioner Tlirough; Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Through; Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate AND Page 2 of 7 3 56 + W.P.(C)5576/2010& CM No.10967/2010(ii/S 151 CPC for stay) KARTIK DAS Petitioner Tlirough; Ms. Suman Cliaulian & Mr. Jivesli Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Mulcesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates AND 57 + W.P.(C)5577/2010& CMNo.10969/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) MD. ASFAQ .....Petitioner f Tlirough: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate AND 59 + W.P.(C)5580/2010& CM No.10973/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) MAHAVIR Petitioner Tlirough: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate Page 3 of 7 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER % 17.08.2010 1. The petitioners in all these petitions claim to be hawking in front of DDA flats, Bhoomiheen Camp, New Delhi. It is the case of each of the petitioners tliat he has applied to the Zonal Vending Committee constituted ^ under the National Policy on Urban Street Vendor - 2007; that his application is still pending; that in the meanwhile, he is being disturbed by the respondent MCD from hawking at the said site. The provisions of the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2009 and earher f orders of this Court in similar petitions are invoked, to restrain the respondent MCD from disturbing the petitioner till his application to the Zonal Vending Committee is decided. 2. Though it is correct that this Court, in writ petitions as the present ^ one, has been protecting the hawkers till the decision of their applicationsby the Zonal Vending Committee but in another matter, pertaining to NDMC area it was pointed out that such orders are resulting in the persons found eligible by the Zonal Vending Committee being not able to talce their allotted site for the reason of the same being occupied by other hawkers under protection of orders of the Courts and who have till now not been found eligible for a hawkingsite. This fact as well as the admittedposition that none of the petitioners, in the past has ever been granted a tehbazari licence were put to the counsel for the petitioners. Page 4 of 7 5' 3. The counsel for the petitioners states that she on behalf of the petitionersundertakesto this Court that even if the squatting/ hawkingof the petitionersis protectedtillthe decisionofthe ZonalVendingCommittee, in the event of the site on which the petitioners are squatting / hawking being allottedto anotherperson by the Zonal VendingCommittee,the petitioners r will immediatelyvacate the same and not come in the way of the allottee occupying the said site. 4. The counselfor therespondentMCD appearingon advancenoticehas also contendedthat none of the petitionershave furnished any proof of any f applicationhavingbeenmadetothe ZonalVendingCommitteeand have not even given any filing number thereof The counsel for the petitioners contendsthat the petitionersare illiteratepersonsand have not retainedany copiesor particularsof the applicationspreferredby them beforethe Zonal ^ Vending Committee. This Court in several other matters filed by the hawkersand evenwhentheyhadtill nownot approachedthe ZonalVending committee,have permittedthe petitionsto be treated as representationsof the petitionersto the Zonal Vending Committee and directed the Zonal VendingCommitteeto decide the same. I see no reason to not follow the same practicevis-a-visthe petitionersinthepresentpetitionsalso. k. 5. The counselfor the respondentMCD appearingon advancenoticehas furthercontendedthat the petitionerscan at best be permittedto hawk their wares as a '"pheriwald"and cannot be allowed to squat at any site. The Page 5 of 7 counsel for the petitioners agrees tliat the petitioners if granted the protection of this Court would not squat on any site. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid statements and with which the petitioners c are ordered to be found, the writ petitions are disposed of with the directions:- (i) The Zonal Vending Committee to decide the applications of the petitioners within one month of today. Though the petitioners claim to have made applications but if for any reason the same are not available with the Zonal Vending Committee, the present writ petitions be treated as the applications / representations of the petitioners to the Zonal Vending Committee for a hawking site. (ii) Till the decision as aforesaid of the applications of the ('J petitionersby the Zonal Vending Committee,the respondent MCD to not disturb the petitioners from hawking at the place aforesaid. However, if the petitioners are not found eligible, the petitioners undertake not to squat / hawk on the said site and / or any other site and to immediately remove themselves. Similarly, if the site on which the petitioners are hawking is allotted to any other person found eligible by the Zonal Vending Committee, the petitioners shall immediately remove themselves from said place. The petitioners to also not squat at Page 6 of 7 H any place and to sell their wares by moving around as a pheriwala. 7. It is flirther made clear that if the petitioners are squatting / hawking on a non-hawking zone, the protection of this order shall not enure to the petitioners. 8. The petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be given dasti. CM Nos.10956/2010 in WP(C) No.5570/2010, 10958/2010 in WP(C) No.5571/2010, 10960/2010 in WP(C) No.5572/2010. 10962/2010 in WP(C^ No.5573/2010, 10964/2010 in WP(C) No.5574/2010, 10966/2010 in WP(C^ No.5575/2010. 10968/2010 in WP(C^ No.5576/2010. 10970/2010 in WP(C) No.5577/2010 & 10974/2010 in WP(C) No.5580/2010 (all u/S 151 CPC for exemption). Allowed, subject to just exceptions. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 17, 2010/gsr Page 7 of 7