50$^ + 51 52 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C)5570/2010& CMNo.10955/2010(ii/S 15l CPC for stay) RAJU JAISWAL Petitioner Tlirough; Ms. Suman Cliauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent ' Tlirough: Mr. Miikesli Gupta & Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates AND W.P.(C) 5571/2010 & CM No.10957/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) RAJA RAlM Petitioner Tlirougli: Ms. Suman Cliauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Mulcesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates AND W.P.(C) 5572/2010 & CM No.10959/2010 (u/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 V' 7^ AND 53 + , W.P.(C) 5573/2010 & CMNo.10961/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) RAJPAL SINGH Petitioner Through: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: 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 Tlirough: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate AND Page 2 of 7 56 + W.P.(C) 5576/2010& CM No.10967/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) KARTIK DAS Petitioner Tlirough: Ms. Siiman Cliaiilian & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Mukesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates V and 57 + W.P.(C) 5577/2010& CM No.10969/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) MD. ASFAQ Petitioner Tlirough: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate AND 59 + W.P.(C) 5580/2010 & CMNo.10973/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) ^ MAHAVIR Petitioner Tlirough: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Through: 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 that he has applied to the Zonal Vending Committee constituted under the National Policy on Urban Street Vendor - 2007; that his V applicationis still pending;that in the meanwhile,he is being disturbedby the respondent MCD from hawking at the said site. The provisions of the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2009 and earlier 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 applications by 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 take 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 hawking site. This fact as well as the admitted position 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 y 3. The counsel for the petitioners states that she on behalf of the petitioners undertakes to this Court that even if the squatting / hawking of the petitioners is protected till the decision of the Zonal Vending Committee, in the event of the site on which the petitioners are squatting / hawking being allotted to another person by the Zonal Vending Committee, the petitioners will immediately vacate the same and not come in the way of the allottee occupying the said site. 4. The counsel for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice has also contended that none of the petitioners have furnished any proof of any application having been made to the Zonal Vending Committee and have not even given any filing number thereof The counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are illiterate persons and have not retained any copies or particulars of the applications preferred by them before the Zonal Vending Committee. This Court in several other matters filed by the hawkers and even when they had till now not approached the Zonal Vending committee, have permitted the petitions to be treated as representations of the petitioners to the Zonal Vending Committee and directed the Zonal Vending Committee to decide the same. I see no reason to not follow the same practice vis-a-vis the petitioners in the present petitions also. 5. The counsel for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice has further contended that the petitioners can at best be permitted to hawk their wares as a "pheriwala" and cannot be allowed to squat at any site. The Page 5 of 7 counsel for the petitioners agrees that 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 are ordered to be found, tlie writ petitions are disposed of with the directions (i) *The Zonal Vending Committeeto decide the applicationsof the petitioners within one montli 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 petitioners by 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 undertalce 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 It any place and to sell their wares by moving around as a pheriwala, 7. It is further 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 pefeionsare disposedof. No orderas 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, 2( Page 7 of 7