44&,66$- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) 7029/2011 & cM No.16077 12011 (for interim relief) HARBIR SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. FaiyazHasan, Adv. Versus r GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1&6. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-l to3 &6. -.:\ s. vaishalee Mehra, Adv. for R-4. AND + Review Petition No.543l2011 in w.P.(c) 669212011 & cM No. 1 6228 l20II (for interim directions) LOOSE FLOWER & CUT FLOWER (COMMISSION AGENT) GROWER & TRADERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION ..... PCtitiONET Through: Ms. Vaishalee Mehra, Adv. "a' Versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1&6. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-1 to 3,6&7. Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Faiyaz Hasan, Adv. for Review Petitioners. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW WP(C)7029/2011 Page 1 of 4 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 +{! o ORDER 26.09.20L1 1. W.P.(C) No.702912011 has been filed by 25 persons claiming to be the traders in flowers, leaves and other items, to restrain the respondents from removing them from "Mehrauli Flower Mandi". 2. The senior counsel for the petitioners though has argued that the petitioners were sitting not in the area where the ersfwhile Mehrauli Flower Mandi was, but on the land adjacent thereto, but the prayer paragraph belies the said contention. 3. The removal of the Flower Mandi inter alia at Mehrauli was subject matter of W.P.(C) No.4278l20II decided on 28.07.2011 titled as Dellfi Flowers Cutters, Growers and Suppliers l(elfore Society (Regd.) Vs. GNCTD. After the said judgment, the r€spondents had issued a fresh Notification on 01.08.2011 removing the discrepancies owing whereto the shifting of the Flower Mandi was struck down in the said judgment. It is the case of the counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice that the Flower Mandi has since been shifted and the traders accommodated at the new notified Flower Market / Mandi at IFC Ghazipur. 4. In fact, W.P.(C) No.669212011 was filed with the grievance that those who had shifted in pursuance to the Notification dated 01.08.2011 were not able to aarry on trade at the new location for the reason of trade continuing at the old market site and for directions restraining the same. Vide order dated 14.09.2011 directions were issued to ensure that the trade does not continue at the sites which have ceased to be market sites. Review of the said order also is sought on the same ground as in W.P.(C) No.7029/20II. wP(c)7029/2011 page 2 of4 U { x, V 5. The senior counsel for the writ petitioners / review applicants contended that the writ petitioners / review applicants are in fact retailers and not wholesellers who were relocated at IFC Ghazipur. He further contends that they have not been re-located at IFC Ghazipur and there is no Scheme for their re-location. It is contended that they cannot be left without their source of livelihood. 6. It.is abundantly clear that the writ petitioners / review applicants are seeking to restrain their dispossession from the old market site. Even if the petitioners / review applicants were functioning without licence at the old market site, they cannot be permitted to so continue. They are not able to show any other authorization in the form of tehbazari or other licence issued by the concerned authorities permitting them to undertake the business at the said site. 7. In fact, the land underneath the Flower Mandi with respect to which these proceedings pertain belongs to the DDA and dispossession at the instance of DDA was stayed on an earlier occasion owing to the area having been notified as a market site. Now that the said area stands de-notified, the question of allowing the petitioners / review applicants to continue their business does not arise. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As long as the petitioners / review applicants are permitted to continue at the site, the new market at IFC Ghazipur will never practically become functional inasmuch as customers if continue to have their requirements fulfilled from Mehrauli Mandi would not like to visit the distant Mandi at IFC Ghazipur. The same wP(c)7029/2011 prye3of4 { ,b 5 The Y would also interfere with the re-location as has been undertaken. counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice also contends that in fact the petitioners / review applicants are close associates / relatives of the licence holders and the attempt is to continue at the old market site. g. If the petitioners / review applicants claim to be retailers, they cannot be expected to be concentrating at one site as in a Mandi. Moreover, if they are carrying on retail trade, they are required to'obtain tehbazari licence from the appropriate authorities. 10. There is thus no merit in the writ petition / review applicationfl. They are dismissed. No order as to costs. CM No.16229l2011 (for exemption) in Review Petition No.543/2011 in W.P.(O No.6692l20l1 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J b si SEPTEMBER 26,2011 'gtt'' trP(c)7029/201 I poge 4 of4