$~22 * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA802016 Date of Judgment:
16. h February, 2017 DWARKA SECTOR6VENDOR ASSOCIATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Chetan Shandilya, Advocate. Versus MCD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey & Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Advocates for SDMC. Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC for GNCTD with Ms.Sona Babbar & Ms. Pritika Kumar, Advocates with Insp. Adith Lily and SI Mukesh Kumar of PS Dwarka (South). Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for R-6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL G.S. SISTANI, J.
(ORAL) 1. Challenge in this LPA is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.10.2015 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant association seeking a direction to the respondents not to LPA802016 Page 1 of 20 dispossess the members of the appellant association from their hawking sites i.e. Dwarka Sector-6 Market, New Delhi has been dismissed.
2. It is pointed out that the appellant association comprises of 72 members, but for the present only 35 members are in existence.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that although they have been squatting at different areas, however they were illegally removed by the respondent DDA on 27.08.2015. Learned counsel submits that the appellants are required to be protected in view of the Section 3 (3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, as per which no street vendor is to be evicted till a survey is completed and certificate of vending is issued to all the street vendors. He submits that samples of challans issued to the members of the association have been placed on record to show that the appellants have been vending since the year 2001. Learned counsel submits that although the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Town Vending Committee is in the process of being constituted. In fact, the Town Vending Committee is still not in place and in case the appellants are not allowed to vend, they would suffer financial hardships as this is their only source of livelihood.
4. We are informed that the writ petition was disposed of on the first date of hearing itself and thus no response was filed by any of the respondents. The position is no different today as there is no response by any of the statutory bodies, who have been impleaded as parties. LPA802016 Page 2 of 20 5. This petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent No.6 (Central Market Sector-6 Dwarka Welfare Association), which was impleaded as a party by an order dated 26.07.2016.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the appellants are encroachers on public land. They have no right to vend or hawk in an area, which has been declared by the MCD as “No Vending Zones” and “No Hawking Zones”. Additionally, it is submitted that along with the LPA, documents pertaining to only five members of the appellant association have been filed, although an impression was created that the documents pertaining to all the members have been placed on record. He further submits that by an order 26.07.2016 a direction was issued to the petitioner to file further documents, however the said documents, which have been placed on record, are forged and fabricated, which would be evident from the fact that the receipts filed at page No.247, 249 and 259 pertain to different persons but all the particulars on the receipts are same except the name of the persons. Counsel for respondent No.6 further submits that neither the writ petition was maintainable nor the present LPA is maintainable as the respondent No.6 has instituted an earlier writ petition with respect to the encroachments of the same area and same market, being WP (C) No.3521/2006. It is contended that when the aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing on 21.09.2006, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for respondent No.2 shall file a supplementary affidavit indicating the plan/action to remove encroachment, on systematic basis, from the public land in the markets in question. Let the affidavit be filed within four weeks. List on 5th February, 2007.” LPA802016 Page 3 of 20 7. Counsel contends that remedial action was taken and the market was cleared of all encroachments, which is evident upon reading the subsequent order passed on 14.02.2008, which reads as under: “Status report has been filed by both DDA as well as Delhi Police. The photographs show that encroachments have been removed. Details of FIR registered against persons who had encroached upon footpath and other land adjacent to the market have been enclosed with the affidavit. In view of the action taken nothing survives in the present writ petition. However, it is directed that the respondent/DDA and Delhi Police will continue to make periodical inspections of the area to ensure that footpath and other areas are not encroached upon.” 8. It is submitted that the appellants in connivance with officials of the respondents continued to flout the orders and the appellants, who are part of the strong mafia, continue to occupy and obstruct public areas in utter defiance of the order passed in W.P. (C) No.3521/2006, which order was never challenged and has thus attained finality. It is also contended by the counsel for respondent No.6 that the documents sought to be relied upon by the appellants are unreliable and in fact do not support the case of the appellants that they have been vending at the area in question since 2001.
9. Attention of the court is drawn to paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Crl. Misc. Application No.17488/2016 filed by the respondent No.6 to show that false and misleading statements have been made by the appellant. The paragraphs read as under: - “3. That the Appellant filed false affidavit, made false statements and fabricated documents when he filed the present LPA, which is demonstrated below: - S.No.STATEMENT MADE BY ITS FALSITY PROVEN FROM LPA802016 Page 4 of 20 APPELANT/BAL KISHAN COURT RECORD1 Mr. Bal Kishan filed a list of 72 persons & annexed some alleged documents in support [Annexures P2(Colly) & P3(Colly) Pg 80 to 96 of LPA]. and described them as below: Annexure P2(Colly):
"Copies of Challan Receipts of the Vendors" Annexure P3(Colly):
"Challan by MCD and confiscation of the items from which been vending" have they 2. 72 persons were That operating in Dwarka Sec. market from the year 2001 vendors as that even (a) Scrutiny of these alleged documents showed these were with respect to only 5 persons, which was shown for 72 persons and in this garb new encroachment was being attempted. (b) Mr. Bal Kishan had shown no locus to represent anyone or file any legal case before any court, let alone 72 persons and LPA was filed giving some address of Nangloi, which the petition itself stated as residence address of Mr. Bal Kishan. (c) no vending rights were ever granted in this market area, as it is a Non Vending/Non hawking area and rather a Zero Tolerance Zone. (d) there was not even one alleged document in favour of Bal Kishan. (a) When this litigation started, there were no vendors in this market area and Bal Kishan himself submitted it, which was observed by High Court in impugned Order dt. 15.10.2015 in W.P(C) No.9042/2015. " But as per averments in paras 25 and 26 of the petition the petitioners have already on 27.08.2015."
(b) Delhi High Court vide Order dt 21.09.2006 in W.P.(C) No.35
had directed Govt. authorities to remove all encroachments in markets at Sector 6 & 10, Dwarka, N. Delhi and to continue doing so on systematic basis. (c) Delhi High Court vide Order dt. 14.02.2008 in W.P.(C) No.3521/2006 had observed there was no encroachment in this market and further directed DDA & Delhi Police to make periodical inspection of market area & ensure that footpath & other areas are not encroached upon by unscrupulous elements. These Orders have been placed on record in present proceedings. dispossessed been that LPA802016 Page 5 of 20 … 3. Mr. Bal Kishan claimed himself to be President of an association named Dwarka Sector-6 Vendors Association claiming represent 72 persons to had (d) Respondent No.6 filed photographs & video showing there are no existing vendors in this market area There is no such association or entity named Dwarka Sector-6 Vendors Association. Nothing was placed on record to substantiate Mr. Bal Kishan projecting himself alleged President. its as 7. That the scrutiny of the Affidavit 10th August 2016 filed by Mr. Bal Kishan and copies of documents annexed, has revealed further false statements by Appellant who has filed another false affidavit on oath before this Hon’ble Court and that Appellant and his accomplices have further forged & fabricated documents to play fraud upon this Hon’ble Court, as detailed below:
7. 1: False statements made in the affidavit S.No.STATEMENT MADE/ DOCUMENTS FILED BY APPELANT1 Appellant in para 4 of is now affidavit has stated:
"I say that the appellant association filing proof of 37 vendors out of 72 vendors because rest of the vendors are not having any supported documents ……."
2. Appellant now claims that 37 vendors have supported documents ITS FALSITY PROVEN FROM COURT RECORD (a) As shown above, when this litigation started, there were no vendors in this market area as submitted by Bal Kishan himself. (b) Mr. Bal Kishan filed a list of 72 persons & annexed some alleged documents in support as "Copies of Challan Receipts of the Vendors" AND "Challan by MCD and confiscation of the items from which they have been vending" (c) After the falsity of this statement was exposed, now Appellant says only 37 vendors have any proofs, which means 35 out of 72 vendors never had any supporting documents, as was being falsely claimed. Scrutiny of even these documents shows that even this is false as they are not even 37 and the nature of documents is commented upon against each in the sub-paras below. 7.2: List of persons with no ID and no connection with Sec. 6 Market: [Alleged documents of each name grouped together to highlight the same]. LPA802016 Page 6 of 20 S.No.1. Name Shankar Particulars Pg. No.Observation Copy of alleged No.Receipt dated 471005 03.12.2013 for Rs. 50/-. 11 Without any I.D. proof Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked.
2.
3.
4. Raghav Laxmikant Copy of alleged No.dated Receipt 451684 04.09.2013. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 45672 dated 02.03.2016. Copy of alleged Receipt No.30739 dt 9.06.10 Copy of alleged Receipt No.24067 dt. 6.01.11 Copy of alleged Receipt No.680064 dt.28.3.06 Copy of alleged Receipt No.410 dated 20.03.2008 Bal Kishan Copy of Voter ID as ID Proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 471041 dated 18.01.2014. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 668629 dated 22.08.2014 Copy pass of book Corporation Bank Copy of alleged No.Receipt 055273 dated 5. Surender Yadav 13 Without I.D. Proof Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. There is no I.D. Proof to even connect these documents with this person. Receipt for garbage. Receipt for garbage Receipt for garbage The name on receipt is Raghu Paswan The name on receipt is Raghu Paswan Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Irrelevant document attached to mislead the court. No I.D. Proof. Address on Receipt is RZ C/8 16 17 18 19 20 31 32 33 34 35 LPA802016 Page 7 of 20 6. Manoj Rao Copy of One side 36 24.09.2013. of of of Voter ID card Copy of alleged Receipt No.668632 dt 22.8.14 Copy pass book Corporation Bank Copy of Voter ID card Copy pass book Corporation Bank Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 1046714 dated 20.03.2012. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 40003 dated 10.09.2014 Copy of passbook Corporation Bank Copy of Aadhar card Copy of Voter ID card Copy of photos pass Copy book Corporation Bank Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 210801 dated 16.01.2013. some of 7. Madhur Rahman 8. Devender 9. Gulshan Sabharwal 10. Shrey Khetrapal 11. Rinku Patel Garden No name. Back side of some Voter ID attached in order to mislead. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Irrelevant document attached to mislead the court. Only copy of ID card attached. No document to show any connection. 37 38 39 40 43 42 41 Name on Aadhar is different i.e. Devendra Khetrapal Receipt in name of different person Devi Der. For garbage. Receipt in name of Devender. For garbage. Irrelevant document attached to mislead the Court. No document, only IDs given. 46 & 48 Not a document. 44 45 47 49 58 59 No document & no connection. Irrelevant document attached to mislead the Court. FORGED & FABRICATED RECEIPT [THREE RECEIPTS OF SAME NO.]. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked.
12. Rahul Copy of Aadhar 60 & SAME DOCUMENT LPA802016 Page 8 of 20 as ID Proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 210801 dated 16.01.2013. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 39331 dated 15.07.2015 63 61 & 64 62 & 65 13. Amit 14. Lala Ram 15. Subhash Kumar 16. Ajay Kumar Jumani Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 210801 dated 16.01.2013. Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 471067 dated 10.02.2014. Copy of Driving License as ID Copy of alleged No.Receipt 471043 dated 18.01.2014. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 13000 dated 16.01.2013 Copy of Voter card as ID Proof Copy of alleged 70 71 68 69 79 80 81 84 85 REPEATED TO MISLEAD THE COURT FORGED & FABRICATED RECEIPT [THREE RECEIPTS OF SAME NO.]. SAME DOCUMENT REPEATED TO MISLEAD THE COURT. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked Challan is in the name of Garg Creations, a shop rather than any vendor. DOCUMENT SAME REPEATED TO MISLEAD THE COURT. FORGED & FABRICATED RECEIPT [THREE RECEIPTS OF SAME NO.]. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Receipt in name of different LPA802016 Page 9 of 20 17. Sanjay Kumar 18. Pappu 19. Karam Veer Singh 20. Ravi 21. Manish Kumar No.dated Receipt 322066 10.09.2007. Copy of alleged summon dated 16.11.2010. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 21842 dated 25.11.2010. Copy of alleged Receipt No.74453 dt 13.01.11 Copy of alleged summon dated 03.01.2012. Copy of Voter card as ID Proof Copy of alleged Receipt No.dated 06.03.2014. Copy of Voter ID from Unnao, UP Copy of photo Copy of Voter card as ID Proof Copy of alleged Receipt No.dated 25.01.2010. Death Certificate of Ravi Chauhan Copy of Aadhar Card of some Neetu Chauhan Copy of Aadhar card as ID Proof Copy of medical documents some Shweta some some of 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 97 96 95 98 99, 100, 101, 102 person Sonu. For garbage. In name of different person Sonu. For garbage. Receipt in name of different person Sonu. For garbage. Receipt in name of different person Sonu. For garbage. Only Summon. No ID and No proof. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. No Proof Not a document. THIS PERSON HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE DEAD, on 27.11.2015, STILL CLAIM BEING MADE IN HIS NAME Receipt Chawan. For garbage, etc. No relevancy in name of Ravi relevant Not all. No explanation has been given. Clear effort to mislead the Court. at LPA802016 Page 10 of 20 22. Manoj Kumar 23. Gaurav Kumar Bansal 24. Bhupinder Gauhar 25. Manoj Yadav 103 104 117 118 119 120 121 122 125 Copy of Voter card as ID Proof Copy of alleged Receipt No.000683538 dated 27.05.2015. Copy of Aadhar card as ID Proof Copy of Voter card as ID Proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 211000 dated 25.03.2013. Copy of alleged Receipt No.37825 dt. 25.6.15. Copy of Aadhar card as ID Proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 0329613 dated 14.11.2015. Copy of Aadhar card of Begu Sarai, Bihar as ID Copy of medical documents of Manoj Yadav 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 & 132 Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Name on Aadhar card Gaurav Bansal Name on card Gaurav Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Receipt in a different name Pranav Bansal on Receipt. Name on card is Bhupinder Gohar is Name Bhupinder. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Not all. No explanation has been given. Clear effort to mislead the Court. relevant at 7.2: That out of these 37 persons Sanjay Bisht and Pankaj Rathor (part of original list) have accepted that they were never a vendor at Sector-6 market, Dwarka and their name has been put in the list fraudulently and have given affidavits to this effect, copies of which are enclosed as Annexure R
& Annexure R
respectively. S.No.Name 1. Sanjay Bisht Pg. No.Observation Particulars 56 Name at Sl. No.21 [Pg 76 LPA]. Copy of Voter ID Card Copy of alleged MCD Receipt No.37824 dated 57 Location is not related to the Sec. 6 market. Has given affidavit that he was never a LPA802016 Page 11 of 20 2. Pankaj Rathor 2, 25.06.2015 of B- 107, DDA Flats Pkt sec.7 Dwarka Name at Sl. No.26 [Pg 76 of LPA]. vendor of Sector-6 market and his name has been put in the list fraudulently. Has given affidavit that he was never a vendor of the Sector-6 market and his name has been put in the list fraudulently. 7.4: List of alleged documents filed by Appellant with respect to persons claiming vendor rights: [Alleged documents of each name grouped to highlight the same]. Particulars Pg. No.Observation S.No.Name 1. Ghanshyam Copy of Aadhar from Card as ID Copy of alleged Registration certificate 11.08.2015 Copy of alleged Tehbazari Receipt No.197110 dt 19.10.2006 for Rs.100/-. Copy of alleged Court MM No.Receipt 000921091 for Rs.100/- Copy of alleged MCD Receipt No.51434 Copy of alleged MCD Receipt No.77174 dt. 16.3.11 Copy of alleged MCD Receipt No.24055 dated 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Name on ID Ghanshyam Madan Such a certificate issued by Dept. of Food Safety are w.r.t. food safety. At bottom this itself states:
"This document doesnot vest any right to the vendor to vend from the address shown in the Registration certificate" The date of issue is after the Vendors Act was notified. Challan in name of Ghanshyam. Contains no address. Receipt in name of Ghanshyam. Contains no address. Receipt in name of Ghanshyam. For garbage etc. Address only Sec. 6 Market. Receipt in name of Ghanshyam. For garbage. Address only Sec. 6 Market. Receipt in name of Ghanshyam. For garbage. Address only Sec. 6 Market. LPA802016 Page 12 of 20 2. Jitender Tiwari 10 12 14 15 21 24 06.01.2011 Copy of alleged MCD Receipt No.038312 dated 12.07.2012 Copy of alleged No.Receipt 0853210 dated 10.6.2011 Copy of alleged MCD Receipt No.38379 dated 08.07.2015 Copy of alleged No.Receipt 40547 dated 04.09.2015 Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof Copy of alleged Registration certificate 02.03.2015 from 3. Avdhesh Tiwari 23 24 Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof Copy of alleged Registration certificate 05.03.2015 from in name Receipt contains address as D- 7/56, Sec. 6 Rohini. Receipt of Ghanshyam. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Receipt in name of Ghanshyam. For garbage. Address only Sec. 6 Market. Receipt contains address as D- 7/56, Sec. 6 Rohini Not existing. Such a certificate issued by Dept. of Food Safety are w.r.t. food safety. At the bottom this itself states:
"This document doesnot vest any right to the vendor to vend from the address shown in the Registration certificate" The date of issue is after the Vendors Act was notified. Address on the same is Sec. 6 , Dwarka, Rajouri Garden. Address is of Siwan, Bihar Not existing. Such a certificate issued by Dept. of Food Safety are w.r.t. food safety. At the bottom this itself states:
"This document doesnot vest any right to the vendor to vend from the address shown in the Registration certificate" The date of issue is after the Vendors Act was notified. Address on the same is Sec. 6 , Dwarka, Uttam Nagar Rajouri LPA802016 Page 13 of 20 4. Lalmati Devi Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof Copy of alleged Reg. certificate from 02.03.2015 25 26 5. Navalesh Kumar 27 28 Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof Copy of alleged Registration certificate 10.03.2015 from 6. Pankaj Tiwari 30 29 Copy of Voter ID as ID Proof Copy of alleged Registration certificate 05.03.2015 from Garden. Wife of Jitender Tiwari (Sl. No.2) Not existing. Such a certificate issued by Dept. of Food Safety are w.r.t. food safety. At the bottom this itself states:
"This document doesnot vest any right to the vendor to vend from the address shown in the Registration certificate" The date of issue is after the Vendors Act was notified. Address on the same is Sec. 6 , Dwarka, Rajouri Garden. Address is of Gaya, Bihar Not existing. Such a certificate issued by Dept. of Food Safety are w.r.t. food safety. At bottom this itself states:
"This document doesnot vest any right to the vendor to vend from the address shown in the Registration certificate" The date of issue is after the Vendors Act was notified. Address on the same is Sec. 6 , Dwarka, Uttam Nagar Rajouri Garden. Address is of Siwan, Bihar Not existing. Such a certificate issued by Dept. of Food Safety are w.r.t. food safety. At bottom this itself states:
"This document doesnot vest any right to the vendor to vend from the address shown in the Registration certificate" The date of issue is after the Vendors Act was notified. Address on the same is Sec. 6 , Dwarka, Uttam Nagar Rajouri Garden. LPA802016 Page 14 of 20 7. Gulshan Khurana 8. Deepak Arora 9. Vikas Kumar 10. Harish Copy of alleged Receipt No.013078 dated 18.03.2014. Copy of alleged Receipt No.210888 dated 13.02.2013. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 048670 dated 30.04.2013 Copy of alleged No.Receipt 055269 dated 24.09.2013 Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof. Copy of alleged Receipt No.104003 dated 13.12.2011. Copy of alleged Receipt No.30209 dated 25.06.2014. Copy of Aadhar as ID Proof Copy of Voter Card as ID proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 1044462 dt 03.01.2012. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 12941 dated 26.12.2012. Copy of alleged No.Receipt & 451728 summon dated 10.10.2013 Copy of alleged 50 51 52 53 54 55 66 67 72 73 74 75 & 76 77 For garbage. Address given on receipt is only Sec.
6. Receipt in name of Gulshan. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Receipt in name of Gulshan for garbage. Receipt contains address as B- 65, Subhash Park Name on ID is Deepak Kumar Arora Receipt for garbage. Receipt for garbage. Address only Sec. 6 Market No clear I.D. Proof. Nothing readable. Receipt for garbage. Address only Sec. 6 Market Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Challan by Delhi Police for LPA802016 Page 15 of 20 11. Mahesh Kumar Yadav 12. Ajay Tiwari 13. Naresh Sharma 14. Vinod Prasad No.dated Receipt 471042 18.01.2014 Copy of alleged No.Receipt 30274 dated 25.06.2014 Copy of Voter card as ID Proof Copy of alleged No.Receipt 30276 dated 25.06.2014. Copy of Aadhar card as ID Proof with some complaint Copy of alleged Receipt No.027341dated 16.05.2014. Copy of Voter card as ID Proof Copy of alleged summon dated 04.06.2014 Copy of alleged No.Receipt 471135 dated 07.05.2014. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 30210 dated 06.06.2014 Copy of Aadhar card as ID Proof Copy of alleged Receipt No.12959 dated 26.03.2012. Copy of alleged summon dated 27.08.2011 Copy of alleged Receipt No.78 garbage. No address of where it is booked. Receipt for garbage. Address only Sec. 6 Market 82 83 Receipt for garbage. Address only Sec. 6 Market 106, 107 Receipt For garbage 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 is Naresh Name on card Kumar Only Summon. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Receipt For garbage. Challan by Delhi Police for garbage. No address of where it is booked. Only summon. Receipt for garbage with add. as Sec. 6 Dwarka LPA802016 Page 16 of 20 15. Shasanka Shekha Shahu 82090 dt 10.8.11. Copy of alleged No.Receipt 45771 dated 17.03.2010. Copy of Aadhar card as ID Proof Copy of alleged Receipt No.39583 dated 22.07.2015. 116 Receipt for garbage 123 Name on card is Shasanka Shekhar Sahoo Name on Receipt of Garbage. is Shushaku Shahu” 10. Counsel submits that the documents sought to be relied upon are irrelevant documents as some of the documents are challans issued by Delhi Police for storage of garbage. The documents do not connect with the names of the persons and address is not mentioned. It is also contended that once the order passed in WP (C) No.3521/2006 has attained finality, the matter cannot be reheard and even otherwise the names of the appellants do not find mentioned in any of the earlier surveys carried out pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court by either Chopra Committee or Thareja Committee. Thus, the appellants are encroachers and cannot be granted any protection.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.
12. We find that in response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6, there is no satisfactory answer to the submission pertaining to the orders passed in WP (C) 3521/2006 having attained finality. The explanation rendered for not placing proper supporting documents on record by learned counsel for the petitioner is that whenever a raid is conducted by the officials of the LPA802016 Page 17 of 20 respondents, the vendors are left with no option but to run away from the area with their respective goods, which would otherwise be confiscated and penalty imposed upon them. There is also no explanation with regard to documents filed at page No.247, 249 and 259 of the paper book, where the receipt number is the same, all particulars remain identical but the receipts stand in the name of Amit, Rahul and Rinku; except that the appellant association has filed a police complaint against two out of the three persons, who have fabricated the receipts. Copy of police complaint has been placed on record along with CM No.6238/2017.
13. Thus, the appellants have failed to place on record the documents, which would repose confidence in the court that the appellants have been vending at the sites in question since the year 2001. The appellants are unable to show the vital documents in support of this plea. The earlier orders passed and the affidavit filed by DDA in WP (C) 3521/2006 dated 21.09.2006 and 14.02.2008 would show that the area in question was clear of all encroachments even at that stage. In case the appellants were vending at the site, which is disputed by the counsel for the respondent No.6, the appellants would have approached this court to safeguard their interest in the year 2006 or soon thereafter. Thus, a reasonable doubt is created as to whether these are the same appellants, who were infact squatting at the time when orders were passed in WP (C) 3521/2006. LPA802016 Page 18 of 20 14. Therefore, the protection contained in Section 3 (3) would not apply to the members of the appellant association. Additionally the orders passed by this Court in WP (C) 3521/2006 cannot be allowed to be flouted.
15. At this stage, we restrain ourselves from making any further comments or return a finding with respect to the documents filed by some of the appellants on record although the same are not above suspecion or else their rights would be affected in case the members of the appellant association wish to approach the Town Vending Committee in support of their pleas for grant of licences and squatting sites.
16. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present LPA, however we make it clear that should the members of the appellant association approached the Town Vending Committee in the prescribed form, their applications would not be rejected merely because they were not found vending at the site in question provided, of course, they are able to place on record supporting documents in support of their plea that they have been vending since 2001. With these observations, the LPA and all applications are disposed of.
17. We also direct the statutory bodies to ensure that none of the shop- keepers encroach upon verandahs or public land. Counsel for respondent No.6 also undertakes to the court that none of the members of the respondent No.6 association will permit any shop keeper or any member of the association to encroach upon public land, extend their shops or encroach upon verandahs or public land. The statutory LPA802016 Page 19 of 20 bodies are directed to take strict action in case of violation of this undertaking. FEBRUARY16 2017 // “sk” G. S. SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
LPA802016 Page 20 of 20