o,' 39 $-{< INJ THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) s86612010 & CM No.1155 L/2010 (for stay) MD YAQUB ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus ' MLTNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal I(shore Jh4 Advocate. 't AND 40 ; + W.P.(C) sS67l20I0 & CM No.1 1553 12010 (for stay) MANGAL VISHWAS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &, Mr. Surnan Chauhan" Advocates. Versus MCD .'... ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. AND 4L+ W.P.(C) 5868/2010 & CM No.11555 12010 (for stay) Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Surnan Chauhan. Advocates. Versus MCD ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Orn Shalan Singh, Advocates .. -1/ 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 42.; w.P.(c) s870120t0 & cM No.1 1558 12010 (for stav) KHETRAPAL SAHU "" Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & NIr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD "" ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate' AND 43. --t+w.P.(C)587112010&CMNo.1156012010(forstay) MADHU SUDHAN BHOMIK ""' Petitioner Through: i\4r. Jivesh Tiwari & Ivh' Suman '. Chauhan, Advocates' Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates . AND 44. I +w.P.(C)5s7212010&CMNo.1156212010(forstay) JEEVAN DAS Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 2l \o MCD Versus ..... ResPondent Thlough: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and IMr' Hari Orn Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 45. + W.P.(C) 587312010 & CM No' 1 1564 120t0 (for stav) RAVINDER SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MI-INICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: IMr'. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 46. + W.P.(C) 587412010 & CM No' 1 1566 12010 (for stav) VIKRAM SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwad & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and iMr' Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 47.+ W.P.(C) s87 sl20l0 & CM No. 1 1568 12010 (for stav) ..... Petitioner CHAND rh'ough: Mr' Jivesh riwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates 3l U ] Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Mr' Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 49. + W.P.(C) s877l20l} & CMNo'1157112010 (for stav) BAL BIR ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & tvfu' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MTINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... RESPONdENT Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND s0.+ W.P.(C) s87gl20l0 & CM No.1 1573 12010 (for stav) JAMAN SINGH ""' Petitioner Ttn'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & lvft' Suman Chauhan, Advocates' Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Orn Shalan Singh, Advocates. AND 51.+ W.P.(C) 5880/2010 & CMNo.11575120t0 (for stav) MD.SALIM ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates 4l JI l/ Versus MT]NICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ...'. RESPONdENT Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND s2.. W.P.(C) s8s1/2010 & CMNb'l1s7712010 (for stav) JADGISH SAHU ..... PEtitiONET Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MTINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... RESPONdENT Tlu'ough: iMr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 5J.+ W.P.(C) s882l2OIO & CM No' 11579 12010 (for stav) PAWAN DAS ""' Petitioner Through: I\4r. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates' Versus MI-INICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 54. + W.P.(C) s883/2010 & CMNo.1158112010 (for stav) )l ) KASHINATH ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 55.+ W.P.(C) s884l2OIO & CM No.11583 12010 (for stav) SUKHDEV SARKAR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER 'h 06.09.201,0 1. The petitionels in these writ petitions clairn to be hawkers and further claim to have applied to Zonal Vending Cornrnittee for allotrnent of a hawking site. They seek protection fi'orn dispossession from their existing 6t { lY hawking sites till their representations before the Zonal Vending Cornmittee a.re decided. The counsel for the petitioners besides refening to various orders of this Court wherein the possession of others, whose representations before the Zonal Vending Counnittee are pending, has been protected, also relies on Patri Vyapar Mandal Delhi (Regd) Vd. M.C.D- Town Hull (2009) 12 SCC 475 wherein the Apex Court has clarified that the National Capital Tenitory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act,2009 has to be given effect to. 2. The counsels for MCD, the sole respondent impleaded in all these petitions state that the area frorn whi6h the petitioners clairn to be hawking has been declaled to be a non hawking zone. They fuither state that the said alea is not under the jurisdiction of MCD but is within the jurisdiction of DDA or PWD. The counsels have also handed over in the Court a note dated 31" August, 2010 of the Licensing Inspector, Cenhal Zone, duly verified by the Assistant Cornrnissioner, Central Zone of the MCD stating that Guru Ravidas Matg frorn where petitioners clairn to be hawking / squatting is a non hawking/squatting zone. tl , t tf 3. This Court undoubtedly has in several other rnatters protected the possession of the hawkers till the decision of their representation by the Zonal Vending Committee. However, each of the said orders is on the condition that the protection granted by the Court will not emu'e if the area where the petitioners were hawking/squatting falls in a non hawking zo1e. 4. It was also brought to the notice of this Court in several such matters that owing to such orders being rnade by the Courts, the functioning of the ZonalVending Cornmittee is being affected inasrnuch as the persons found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee and allofied a particular site are being deprived of their sites so allotted to thern owing to the same having been occupied by solne other persons whose eligibility is still to be detelnined"but whose possession/occupation was protected by the order of the Court. .:tt *.r" circurnstances, in subsequent otders, this Court has also clarified that the protection shall not be available if the site on which the : petitioners afe hawking / squatting is allotted to some other person found i eligible by the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot rely on the said orders. 8/ t 5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that there ale several other hawkers who are hawking on Guru Ravidas Marg and controverts the stand of the MCD of Guru Ravidas Marg being anon hawking / squatting zone. 6. Need is not felt to keep these petitions pending to resolve the said controversy. The rights of the petitioners ale ultirnately to be decided by the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee only. The petitioners have only given the Diary Nurnbers of the applications/representations stated to have been filed by thern before the Zonal Vending Comrnittee. The counsels for the respondent MCD point out that in WP(C)588212010 the particulals of the petitioner ale also vague. 7. Insofar as the reliance on the Act aforesaid is concemed, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) and3Q) 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 encroaclunent on public street/land. Section 3(1Xb) refers only to scherne and orderly an'angements for regulation of ulban street vendors in consonance with the National Policy for Urban Street Vendors and Hawkers. If under the said policy t- 9/ tY a particular site is declaled as non hawking zone, then the benefit of Section 3(1Xb) / 3(2) would not be available to an unauthorized scluatter/hawker on the said road. 8. The petitions a.re therefore disposed of only with the dilection to the petitioners to appear before the Zonal Vending Comrnittee alongwith all the documents recluiled by the Zonal Vending Cornmittee to assess the eligibility of the petitioners. T\e Zonal Vending Cornmittee to decide the case of each of the petitioners within one month of the petitioners' appearing before the Zonal Vending Cornmittee. The,petitioners will not be entitled to scluat/hawk in any non hawking zone till then' The petitions are disposed of No order as to costs I 10 in s873120 No.1156 0 in W.P 1Ls69 in W.P.(C 10. CM .tLs72/20 in W.P 0. CM No.1157 0 in W.P s8791201 No.1.1576/2 in W.P. t20r L57812010 w.P.(c) s88 No. P.(C 151 CPC fo SAHAI ENDLAW, J MN 10i s8821201 No SEPTEMBER M Allowed subject to just exceptions. I t0/