x 39 $-*INTIIEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDELHI W.P.(C) s86612010 & CM No.1155 Il20I0 (for stav) MD YAQUB ""' Petitioner Thlough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates' Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .".. Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 40 j + w.p.(c) s867l20ro & cMNo.11553 t20t0 (for stay) MANGAL VISHWAS ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: I\&. Jivesh Tiwali & lvlr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates' Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Mansi GuPt4 Advocate' AND 4T +w.P'(C)5868/2010&CMNo.1155512010(forstay) PREM WATI ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Surnan Chauhan, Advocates. Versus I MCD ""' ResPondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr" Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advocatet ,, 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 & CM No.11558 12010 (for stay) KHETRAPAL SAHU ..... Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD Through: .rVrs. Mansi Gupt4 ou";;*iinondent AND 43. + W.P.(C) s87ll20l0 & CM No. I 1560 12010 (for stay) MADHU SUDHAN BHOMIK .... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD rhrough: Ms. Saloj Bidawat *J t#:il#ttr; Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 44. + W.P.(C) 587212010 & CM No.11562 /2010 (for stav) JEEVAN DAS ..... Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 2t lo Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Om Shalan Singh, Advocates AND 45. + W.P.(C) 587312010 & CM No' 1156412010 (for stav) RAVINDER SINGH ""' Petitioner Through: Ml.' Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLTNICIPALt"H},fiil1".on?lR:*f"tshore,n;ff',]|3l*:* AND 46. + W.P.(C) s874l20IO & CM No.11566 12010 (for stav) VIKRAM SINGH ""' Petitioner ough: Ui;,i'Jl'l.ILT, " Mr Suman Versus MCD ""' ResPondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr' Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advocates AND 47. + V/.P.(C) s87 slz}l} & CM No.1 1568 12010 (for stav) GYAN CHAND ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. 3l l1 L Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. AND 49. + W.P.(C) s87712010 & CM No.1 1571 /2010 (for stay) BAL BIR ..... Petitioner Through: Nh. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan" Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: IMr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate. AND 50.+ V/.P.(C) 5879/2010 & CM No.11573 12010 (for stay) JAMAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MCD ..'.. ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat and Mr. Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advocates. AND 5L.+ W.P.(C) 5880/2010 & CM No.11575 12010 (for stay) -l MD.SALIM ..... Petitioner Ttu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwali & Mr. Suman Chauhan" Advocates. 4t t Versus MTINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ""' Respondent Through: Ml. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND 52. i w.P.(c) 5881/2010 & cMNo.l1577120t0 (for stav) JADGISH SAHU ""' Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Thlough: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jh4 Advocate' AND ,- JJ. +w'P.(C)5882120t0&CMNo.1157912010(forstay) PAWAN DAS ""' Petitioner Thlough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &' Mr' Suman Chauhan, Advocates' Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .".. Respondent Ttu'ough: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate' . AND 54. -i + w.p.(c) 5883/2010 & cMNo.11581120t0 (for stay) sl t3 KASHINATH ..... Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Surnan Chauhan. Advocates. Versus MLINICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. AND it v/.p.(c) ss84t2or0& cM No.11583 tzoLl(for stay) SUKHDEV SARKAR ..... Petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocates. *,' versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Tlu'ough: Ms. Mansi Gupt4 Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTTCE RAJIV SAIIAI ENDLAW ORDER 06.09.2010 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions clairn to be hawkers and furttrer clairn to have applied to ZonaI Vending Cornrnittee for allotnent of a hawking site. They seek protection fi'orn dispossession fi'orn theil existing t/" 6t rY hawking sites till their representations before the Zonal Vending Coyunittee ale decided. The counsel for the petitioners besides referring to various orders of this Court wherein the possession of others, whose representations before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee are pending, has been protected, also relies on Putri Vyapar Mundal Delhi (Regd) Vd. M.C.D. Town HaIt (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 alea frorn which the petitioners clairn to be hawking has been declared to be a non hawking zone. They finther state that the said area 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't August, 2010 of the Licensing Inspector, Central Zone, duly verified by the Assistant Cornrnissioner, Central Zone of the MCD stating that Guru Ravidas Marg fi'om where petitioners clairn to be hawking / squatting is a non hawking/squatting zone. f5 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 Comrnittee. However, each of the said orders is on the condition that the protection granted by the Court will not enlue if the area where the petitionels were hawking/squatting falls in a non hawking zone. 4. It was also brought to the notice of this Court in several such rnatters that owing to such orders being rnade by the Courts, the functioning of the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee is being affected inasrnuch as the persons found eligible by the Zonal Vending Comrnittee and allotted 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 detennined but whose possession/occupation was protected by the order of the Court. In these cilcumstances, in subsequent orders, this Court has also clarified that the protection shall not be available if the site on which the petitioners are hawking / squatting is allotted to sorne other person found eligible by the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot relv on the said orders. BI h 5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that there ale several other hawkers who are hawking on Guru Ravidas Malg and controverts the stand of the McD of Guru Ravidas Marg being anon hawking / scluatting 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 Cornmittee only. The petitioners have only given the Diary Nurnbers of the applications/representations stated to have been filed by them before the Zonal Vending Committee. The counsels for the respondent MCD point out that in WP(C) 588212010 the particulars of the petitioner are also vague. 7. Insofar- as the reliance on the Act aforesaid is concerned, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(2) thereof have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act. Section 4 disentitles from relief under Section 3 of the Act in respect of encroachrneSt on public sfreeVland. Section 3(1Xb) refers only to scheme and orderly an'angernents for regulation of ur.ban sfieet vendors in consonance with the National Policy for Ulban Sn'eet Vendors and Hawkers. If under the said policy 9t t tY a particulal site is declared as non hawking zene, then the benefit of Section 3(1)(b) I 3(2) would not be available to an unauthorized squatterftrawker on the said road. 8. The petitions €re therefore disposed of only with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee alongwith all the docurnents required by the Zonal Vending Cornmittee to assess the eligibility of the petitioners. Tlte ZonaI Vending Cornmittee to decide the case of each of the petitioners within one rnonth of the petitioners' appealing before the Zonal Vending Committee. The petitioners will not be entitled to squatlhawk in any non hawking zone till then. The petitions are disposed of No order as to costs. cM No.11552/2010 in W.P.(c) 5866/2010. CM No.11ss4/2010 in w.P.(c) 5867/2010" CM No.11556/2010 in W.P.(C) 5868/2010. CM No.11559/2010 in W.P.(C) 5870/2010. CM No.11561/2010 in W.P.(C) M No.l inW s8721201 No.11565/2010 in W.P.(C) s873/2010" CM No.11s67/2010 in W.P.(C) 10. CM No.1156912010 in W.P.(C) 587s/2010, CM No.11572l2010 in W.P.(C) 5877/2010. CM No.11574/2010 in W.P.(C) 5879/201,0. CM No.11576/2010 in W.P.(O 5880/2010. CM No.1,1578/2010 in W.P.(C) 588L/2010. CM No.11580/2010 in W.P.(C) 5882/20L0. CM No.11582/2010 in W.P.(C) 5883i2010. CM No.11584/2010 in W.P.(C) 5884/2010 ( all u/s 151 CPC for exemptions) Allowed subject to just exceptions. HAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER M L0/