$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:
29. h August, 2017 + W.P.(C) 4858/2017 DINESH KUMAR ........ Petitioner
Through Mr. Vishesh Issar and Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocates versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR ....... RESPONDENTS
Through Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR G.S.SISTANI, J.
(ORAL) 1. The petitioner claims to be a regular squatter and also claims to be carrying out his squatting activities at gali no.4, infront of Mohan Departmental Store (Shop No.2620-2621), Beadon Pura, Main Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that the officials of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation are harassing him and interfering in his vending activities.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner from time to time has been agitating his rights and now in view of Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), thus, the W.P.(C).4858/2017 Page 1 of 4 petitioner cannot be removed. The petitioner has placed various receipts/challans of the years 1978, 1979, 1980, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2015 in support of his plea that the petitioner is a regular squatter.
3. Learned counsel for the North Delhi Municipal Corporation submits that the petitioner has only placed weekly bazaar challans pertaining to Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993, whereas challans for the years 1978, 1979, 1980, 1992, 2010, 2011 and 2015 are not challans issued by the Enforcement Department of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation but pertain to challans issued by the evening court, it is thus contended by the counsel for the North Delhi Municipal Corporation that the petitioner is not a regular squatter which is evident from the challans placed on record. Ms.Nayyar further contends that no benefit can accrue to the petitioner in view of Section 3(3) of the Act for the reason that the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the list prepared by the NDMC or by the Chopra Committee. The counter affidavit filed by the Corporation states that the petitioner is encroaching upon metallic roads and is causing hindrance to the free flow of traffic as well as the pedestrians and hence, was removed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and analysed the documents placed on record. Upon analysis of challans for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 are weekly bazaar challans and would show that the petitioner is not a regular squatter. The challan dated 23.10.2007 pertains to applying for licence under the erstwhile scheme of MCD and again cannot show that the petitioner was squatting at the site in question. Few challans have been issued by the Tis Hazari Courts, however, the challans of the years 1978, 1979, 1980, 1992, 2010, W.P.(C).4858/2017 Page 2 of 4 2011 (12.10.2011) and 2015 show nothing relating to the site where the petitioner claims to be squatting. Only two challans dated 09.12.1994 and 04.11.2011 pertain to the petitioner and his place of squatting.
5. Additionally, the name of the petitioner does not figure in any of the lists prepared by the Municipal Corporation or the Chopra Committee. This gains significance in view of the of the judgments of a coordinate bench of this Court in Bhola Ram Patel v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr., LPA1362016 dated 18.05.2016 [2016 (157) DRJ584 and subsequent clarification dated 27.09.2016 [2016 (159) DRJ494, whereby this Court had directed that the municipal corporation shall ensure smooth passage in public places and pavements and had interpreted the term ‘street vendors’ as those having a pre-existing right as tehbazari licence or name in any list. In the present case, the petitioner neither holds a tehbazari licence nor has his name in any list prepared by the respondent no.1 and thus, cannot claim the protection under Section 3 (3) of the Act.
6. Even further, learned counsel for the respondent has handed over in Court a copy of the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation (NGO) v. Commissioner South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., W.P. (C) 5023/2015 to show that this Court had directed measures to be taken to remove the encroachments on pavement to ensure hindrance free movements of the pedestrians.
7. Based on the stand taken by the learned counsels for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the following agreed directions:-
"(i) In case the petitioner makes an application along with supporting documents to the Town Vending Committee, as and when W.P.(C).4858/2017 Page 3 of 4 functional. The TVC will consider the same in accordance with law. (ii) Merely because the petitioner is not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted, that by itself would not be a ground alone to reject his case.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. C.M. 20969/2017 also stands disposed of in view of above. G.S.SISTANI, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J AUGUST29 2017// pst W.P.(C).4858/2017 Page 4 of 4