$-27 to 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 27+ LPA 998/2011, CM No.21698/2011 (for filing additional documents), CM No.21699/2011 (for inteiim relief) & CM No.21700/2011 (for condonation of delay) RAM KISHAN Appellant Through: Mr. Ramesh Mishra & Mr. Sumeet Shanna, Advocates. Versus NDMC & ANR Respondents Through: Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Sidhi Ai'ora & Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocates for NDMC. AND 28+ LPA 999/2011, CM No.21702/2011 (for condonation of delay) & CM No.21703/2011 (for stay) DULI CHAND Appellant Thiough: Mr. Ramesh Mishra & Mr. Sumeet Shanna, Advocates. Versus NDMC AND ANR Respondents Thiough: Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Sidhi Arora & Mr. Rajat Kumai", Advocates for NDMC. AND 29+ LPA 1000/2011, CM No.21705/2011 (for filing additional documents), CM No.21706/2011 (for inteiim directions) & CM No.21707/2011 (for condonation of delay) RAM BAHADUR Appellant Through: Mi". Ramesh Mishra & Mi". Sumeet Shanna, Advocates. 1/5 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 Versus NDMC & ANR Respondents Thi-ough; Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Sidhi Arora & Mi". Rajat Kmnai-, Advocates for NDMC. AND 30+ LPA 1001/2011, CM No.21709/2011 (for filing additional documents), CM No.21710/2011 (for interim relief) & CM No.21711/2011 (for condonationof delay) CHARAN SINGH Appellant Through: Mi". Ramesh Mishra & Mi". Sumeet Sharma, Advocates. Versus NDMC & ANR Respondents Thi'ough: Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Sidhi Aiora & Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocates for NDMC. AND 31+ LPA 1002/2011,CM No.21713/2011(for condonationof delay) & CM No.21714/2011 (for internn relief) VIPIN PRASAD Appellant Through: Mr. Ramesh Mishra & Mi". Sumeet Sharaia, Advocates. Versus NDMC AND ANR Respondents Through: Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Sidhi Ai'ora & Ml". Rajat Kumai", Advocates for NDMC. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJTV SAHAIENDLAW 2/5 5 ORDER o/o 02.12.2011 1. Afterhearingthe counselsfor both the parties,we aie of the opinion thatthelearnedSingleJudge has rightlyheldthatin view of the statusquo order dated 15^'' July, 2011 passed by the Supreme Court, it is not appropriatefor this Courtto grant any otherkind oforder and at the same time libeityis given to both the paitiesto apply to the SupremeCourt for clarificationofthe statusquo order dated 15*'^ July, 2011 passedin W.P.(C) 1699/1987 titled Gainda Ram Vs. NDMC. 2. The relevantportionof the impugnedorder entailingthe discussion on this aspect is as follows: "30. In the case at hand, while seeking to ride the wave of the aforesaidstatusquo order, thepartieshave chosen to overlook one importantfactor, which is thata statusquo orderoperates on both sides. The SupremeCourthas passed orders requiring both sides to maintainstatus quo. Once such an order of the Supreme Court is on record, the same not only binds all the partiesto the adjudication,and all the parties, civil orjudicial who are requiredto actin accordancewith the saidorders, but it equallybinds the High Courtfrom interferingwith such an order, as the said order has been passed in litigationsbefore the highest Court of the land. 31. The orders of the SupremeCourtare on record. The status quo order is a clearsignalto the High Courtas well, to avoid granting any order, including an interim order, when the SupremeCourthas directedfor statusquo to be maintained.In 3/5 h such circumstances,if this Court was to grant a stay order in favourofthepetitioners/vendorsarrayedbefore it, it wouldbe tantamountto negatingthe ordersof the SupremeCourt, which requirethepartiesto maintainstatusquopendingenactmentof appropriatelegislation.If either of the parties were unclear about the interpretationofthe statusquo order, itwasfor them to have appliedto the SupremeCourtfor clarificationsthereof Additionally,the relianceplacedby the petitioners/vendorson the SpecialProvisionsAct seekinginterimlegalsanctityto the placementofgoods by them on thepavements,by termingitas encroachment/unauthorizeduse, as recognized under the said Actand theircontentionthatthe SupremeCourthad recognized thefact that the SpecialProvisionsAct is the only Centrallaw havingprimacy over other Statutes, are also matters that the petitioners/vendorsought to ha\ye placed before the Supreme Court while seeking clarificationsof the status quo order It wouldthereforebe advisablefor thepetitioners/vendorsas also the respondent/NDMCto approach the Supreme Court and make their submissions there as regards their grievances. However, as,bothpartiesinsistedthat theirargumentsbe taken note ofand theirsubmissionsbe placedon record, somepains have been taken to do the needful. 32. In view ofthe aforesaidfacts andcircumstances,this Court is of the opinion that it will not be appropriatefor it to grant stayordersin theface ofthe statusquo orderdated15.07.2011 passed by the Supreme Court. It is reiteratedthat any such order shall be an anti-thesis to the orders of the Supreme Court, which must be respectedboth, in letter and spirit. In such circumstances,the presentpetitionsare disposed of by declining grant of any interim orders to the petitioners. However, liberty is grantedto both the parties to apply to the SupremeCourtfora clarification ofthe statusquo orderdated 15.07.2011passed in the case of Gainda Ram (supra). The partiesare left to bear theirown costs." 1 4/5 3. We are thus not inclinedto interferewith the aforesaidorder. CM No.21697/2011 in LPA 998/2011. CM No.21701/2011 in LPA 999/2011, CM No.21704/2011in LPA 1000/2011, CM No.21708/2011in LPA No.1001/2011 & CM No.21712/2011 in LPA 1002/2011 (all for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. DECEMBER 02, 2011 bs.. ACTP^trCHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J 5/5