50$^ + 52 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 5570/2010 & CMNo.10955/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) RAJU JAISWAL Petitioner Tlirough; Ms. Siiman Chaulian & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Mnkesli Gupta & Mr. Sumit ^ Gupta,Advocates AND 51 + W.P.(C)5571/2010& CMNo.10957/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) , RAJA RAM Petitioner Tlirough; Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Mukesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit 'V Gupta, Advocates AND W.P.(C)5572/2010& CMNo.10959/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) CHAND Petitioner Tlirough: Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Mulcesh 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 AND 53 + . W.P.(C) 5573/2010 & CMNo.10961/2010 (ii/S 151 CPC for stay) RAJPAL SINGH Petitioner Tlirough: Ms. Suman Chaiilian & Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Tlirough; Mr. Mulcesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit ji 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. MansiGupta,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 56 + W.P.(C) 5576/2010 & CM No.10967/2010 (ii/S 151 CPC for stay) KARTIK DAS Petitioner Tliroiigli: Ms. Suman Chaulian & Mr. Jivesli Tiwari, Advocates Versus MCD Respondent Through: Mr. Mulcesh Gupta & Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates 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 & 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 apphed to the Zonal Vending Committee constituted under the National Pohcy on Urban Street Vendor - 2007; that his applicationis still pending; that in the meanwhile,he is being disturbedby the respondentMCD from hawking at the said site. The provisionsof the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2009 and earlier orders of this Court in similar petitions are invoked, to restrain the respondentMCD from disturbingthe petitionertill his applicationto the Zonal Vending Committee is decided. 2. Though it is correct that this Court, in writ petitions as the present one, has been protectingthe hawkerstill the decisionof their applicationsby the Zonal Vending Committee but in another matter, pertaining to NDMC area it was pointed out that such orders are resultingin 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 protectionof orders of the Courts and who have till now not been found ehgible for a hawkingsite. This fact as well as the admittedposition that none of the petitioners,in the past has ever been granted a tehbazari licencewere put to the counselfor the petitioners. Page 4 of 7 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 allottedto anotherpersonby the Zonal VendingCommittee,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 applicationhavingbeen made to the Zonal VendingCommitteeandhave not even given any filing number thereof. The counsel for the petitioners contendsthat the petitionersare illiteratepersons and have not retainedany copies or particularsof the applicationspreferredby them beforethe Zonal Vending Committee. This Court in several other matters filed by the hawkers and even when they had till now not approachedthe Zonal Vending committee,have permitted the petitions to be treated as representationsof the petitionersto the Zonal Vending Committee and directed the Zonal Vending Committee to decide the same. I see no reason to not follow the samepracticevis-a-visthe petitionersin the presentpetitionsalso. 5. The counsel for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice has 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 -x_< 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, 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 tlie 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 ehgible, tlie petitioners undertake not to squat / hawk on the said site and / or any other site and to immediately remove diemselves. 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 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. kJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 17, 2010/ Page 7 of 7