39 $-*INTHEHIGHCotTRToFDELHIATNEwDELHI + W.P.(C) 586612010 & CM No.1155112010 (for stay) MD YAQUB ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLTNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI '.... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha. Advocate' AND 40+ W.P.(C) 586712010 & CM No.1 1 55312010 (for stay) MANGAL VISHWAS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPta Advocate' AND 4l+ W.P.(C) 5868/2010 & CM No.11sss12010 (for stav) PREM WATI ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan" Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Orn Sharan Singh. Advocates 1l 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 1 AND 42. +w.P.(C)587012010&CMNo,1155812010(forstay) KHETRA'AL SAHU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan. Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta' Advocate' AND 43. +w.P.(C)587:l12010&CMNo.1156012010(forstay) MADHU SLDHAN BHOMIK ""' Petitioner Through: Mr' Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Sutnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr' Hali Orn Sharan Singh. Advocates AND 44. +w.P.(C)587212010&CMNo.1156212010(forstay) JEEVAN DAS ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan. Advocates 1t MCD 45. + w.P.(c) s873120r0 & RAVINDER SINGH lo Versus ..... ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. Hali Om Sharan Sinsh. Advocates AND CM No. 1156812010 (for stay) Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan. Advocates. 3t 46. + CM No.1156412010 (for staY) Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Sutnan Chauhan. Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha. Advocate. AND W.P.(C) 587412010 & CM No.l156612010 (for stay) VIKRAM SINGH Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari Chauhan. Advocates. ..... Petitioner & Mr. Suman MCD Versus ..... ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Orn Sharan Sinsh. Advocates AND 47.+ w.P.(C) s87s12010 & GYAN CHAND t, Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate' AND 49. + W.P.(C) 5877 12010 & CM No. 1 1 57 | l20l 0 (for stav) BAL BIR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan. Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha. Advocate' A.ND 50.+ W.P.(C) 587912010 & CM No.1157312010 (for stav) JAMAN SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Tll'ough: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr' Hali Om Sharan Singh. Advocates. AND 51. + W.P.(C) 5880/2010 & CM No. t 157512010 (for stay) MD.SALIM ""' Petitioner Through. Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan. Advocates. 4t l> Versus MLTNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha. Advocate. AND 52. + W.P.(C) 5881/2010 & CMNo.1157712010 (for stay) JADGISH SAHU ..... Petitioner Tlu'ough. Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &, Mr. Suman Chauhan. Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Throush: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha. Advocate. AND 53. + W.P.(C) 588212010 & CM No.1157912010 (for stay) PAWAN DAS ..... Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus ML|NICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. AND 54. + W.P.(C) 5883/2010 & CM No.l I 58112010 (for stay) 5t KASHINATH ""' Petitioner Tll'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Sutnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... RCSPONdENT Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta" Advocate' AND 55.+ W.P.(C) 5884/2010 & CM No' 11 58312010 (for stav) SUKHDEV SARKAR "" Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan. Advocates' Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... RESPONdENT Thtoueh: Ms. Mansi Gupta" Advocate' CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JTISTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER 'h 06.09.2010 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions clairn to be hawkers and further clairn to have applied to zonal Vending cornrnittee for allotrnent of a hawking site. They seek protection fi'orn dispossession fi'orn their existing 6t lY hawking sites till their represetrtations before the Zonal Vending Comrnittee are decided. The counsel for the petitioners besides refelring to vadous orders of this Courl wherein the possession of others, whose representations before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee are pending, has been protected, also relies on Patri Vyupur Manflal Delhi (Regd) Vd. M'C'D' T^wn Hull (2009) 12 scc 475 wherein the Apex Court has clarified that the National Capital Temtory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act. 2009 has to be given effect to. 2. The coulsels for MCD, the sole respondent irnpleaded in all these petitions state that the area fi'orn which the petitioners clairn to be hawking has been declared to be a non hawking zone. They further state that the said ar-ea is not undel the jurisdiction of MCD but is within the jurisdiction of DDA or PWD. The counsels have also handed or''er in the Court a note dated 31't August. 2010 of the Licensing lnspector. central Zone, duly verified by the Assistant Comrnissioner. CentraT Zone of the MCD stating that Guru Ravidas Marg fi'orn where petitioners clairn to be hawking / squatting is a non hawking/squatting zone' -7 I 3. This Coufi undoubtedly has in several other matters protected the possession of the hawkers till the decision of their representation by the Zonal Vending Cotnrnittee. However. each of the said orders is on the condition that the protection granted by the Court will not enure if the area where the petitioners wefe hawking/squatting falls irr a non hawking zore. 4. It was also brought to the notice of this Court in several such matters that owing to such orders berng made by the Courls. the functioning of the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee is being affected inasrnuch as the persons found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cormnittee and allotted a particular site are being deprived of their sites so allotted to thern owing to the same having been occupied by sorne other persons whose eligibility is still to be detelnined but whose possession/occupation was protected by the order of the Courl. In these circurnstances, in subsequent orders. this Court has also clarified that the protection shall not be available if the site on which the petitionerr..-" hawking i squatting is allotted to some other person found eligible by-the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot rely on the said otders. 8l 6 5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that there are several other hawkers who are hawking on Guru Ravidas Marg atld confloverts the stand of the MCD of Guru Ravidas Marg being a non hawking / squatting zone. 6. Need is not felt to keep these petitions pending to resolve the said controversy. The rights of the petitioners are ultirnately to be decided by the Zonal Vending Comrnittee only. The petitioners have only given the Diary Nurnbers of the applications/represeutatiotrs stated to have been filed by thern before tlte Zonal Vending Cornrnittee. The counsels for the respondent MCD point out that in WP(C) 588212010 the particulars of the petitioner ale also vague. 7. Insofal as the reliance on the Act aforesaid is concetned. the provisions of Sections 3(1Xb) 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 encroachrnetrt on public street/land. Section 3( 1Xb) refers only to scherne and orderly al'langelnents for regulation of ulban street vendors in consonance with the National Policy for Urban Street Vendors and Hawkers. If under the said policy 9t IT a narticular site is declared as non hawking zorre, then the benefit of Section 3(1Xb) I 3(2)would not be available to an unauthorized squatter/hawker on the said road. 8. The petitions ale therefore disposed of only with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the Zonal Vending Cormnittee alongwith all the documents required by the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee to assess the eligibility of the petitioners. The Zonal vending cornmittee to decide the case of each of the petitioners within one tnottth of the petitioners' appearing before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee' The petitioners will not be entitled to squat/hawk in any non hawking zone till then' Thepetitionsar.edisposedofNoorderastocosts. w.P. No. 1s63i2010 w w.P s8731201 CM No.l 15671201 inW N w.P.(c I 57 w.P c) s877 0. CM No.11574/201 inW 5879120r N rs7612010 t1 l0 in P c) s88l/2Q1 C in W.P O. CM lls82/2010 ln 010. cM 10i c) 5884/2010 all m JIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 0 i2 7t Nlowed SEPTEMBER M subject to lust excePttons. (_N oe\ro \. 101