Gopal Modhak v. Mcd

ORDER

09.08.2010 CM No.10468/2010 (for restoration of CM No.1.0136/2010) in W.P.(C) No.3282/2010. CM No.10469/2010 (for restoration of CM No.10135/2010) in W.P.(O No.3303/2010. CM No. 10471/2010 (for restoration of CM No.10132/2010) in W.P.(C) No. 3307/2010. CM No.10472l2010 (for restoration of CM No.10139/2010) in W.P.(C) No.3315/2010. CM No.1,0473/201.0 (for restoration of CM No.10137/2010) in W.P.(C) No.3319/2010 & CM No.10470/2010 (for restoration of CM No.l0138/20L0) in W.P.(C) No.3320/2010. These applications have been filed for restoration of the applications rnoved in each of the writ petitions and which were dismissed for non-4t. + w.P.(c) 331912010 PUSHPA DEVI MCD ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner th trl 2/- -,/ prosecution on 2"d August, 2010. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. The applications, for restoration of which these applications have been filed ale restored to theil original positions. The applications are disposed of. CM No.10136/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for recall of the order dated

14.05.2010) in W.P.(o No.3282l2010" CM No.10135/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for recall of the order dated 14.05.2010) in W.P.(C) No.3303/2010. CM No.10132/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for recall of the order dated 14.05.2010) in W.P.(C) No. 3307/2010" CM No.10139/20L0 (u/S L51 CPC for recatl of the order dated L4.05.2010) in W.P.(C) No.3315/2010. CM No.10137/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for recall of the order dated 14.05.2010) in w.P.(o No.3319/2010 & CM No. CM No. 10138/2010 (u,/S 151 CPC for recalt of the order dated 14.05.2010) in W.P.(C) No.3320/20L0. The wlit petitions were disposed of vide order dated 14tr' May, 2OI0 directing the writ petitions to be treated as representations of each of the petitioners to the Zonal Vending Committee and firther directing the Zonal Vending Committee to take a decision on the claims of the respective petitioner s inter alia rnterms of the National Vending Policy. The parties were directed fui{rer to till the further decision maintain status quo svbject to the petitioners not operating in the non-hawking zone. The respondent MCD by these applications contends that the petitioners ale not tehbazari licence holders and thus the order of stalus quo 3/- shall not apply to qua them. The counsel for the respondent applicant has also drawn attention to the order daled 24't'May,2010 in other writ petitions in which the order of status quo was subject to the petitioners therein being the tehbazarl licence holders. It is felt that no pu{pose will be served in issuing notices of these applications to the petitioners in as much as in the event of the petitioners taking apleathat they are tehbazari Iicence holders, and as they are likely to take, the matter will in any case have to be refened to the Zonal Vending Cornrnittee. The Zonal Vending Cornmittee is the only Commiuee which is equipped to decide as to whether the petitioners are tehbazari hcence holders or not and/or as to whether they are entitled to any hawking site or not. Thus, instead of keeping the rnatters pending over here, it is expedient that the Zonal Vending Committee decides the rnatters expeditiously. The Zonal Vending Cornrnittee is directed to decide at least on the aspect of whether the petitioners ale tehbazari licence holders or not and thus entitled to be considered for hawking site or not within a period of 45 days fi'om the date of comrnunication of this order by the respondent MCD. With the sed of. ENDLAW,J 4/_ /-'r AUGUST 09,2010/pp..

t- q 6\ 4t, 50, 52,56,59, 60 # o/o 14.05.2010 Present:- Ms. Purnima Sethi for the petitioner. Mr. N.K.Jha for respondent MCD. Ms. Saroj Bidawat for MCD. Ms. Mansi Gupta for respondent. W.P. (C) Nos. 3282/2O1O. 33O3/2O1-O. 33O7/2O1O. 331s/20L0. 33L9/20L0. 3320/20L0, * This order shall dispose of the present petitions filed by the petitioners seeking directions to direct the respondent MCD not to disallow them from hawking in the area known as Gali No.13-17, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The petitioners in these writ petitions claim that they have been hawking in the said area for the last twenty years and from time to time they were also challaned by the MCD. It has also been stated by the petitioners that they have already applied for ailotment of hawking licence/tehbazari site to the MCD under the National Vending Policy. It has been further stated by the petitioners that they are all poor people and if they are ! 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. I 'c.l prevented to hawk from the said area by the respondent MCD, then the petitioners and their respective families would starve as they have no other source of income. Mr.N.KJha and Ms. Mansi Gupta enter appearance on advance notice. Mr. Jha on instructions submits that pursuant to the directions given by the Apex Court in Patrt Vyapar Mandal Delhi Vs. IVilCD, Tovyn IfaII, 2OOg (12) SCC 475, the Zonal Vending Committee would be the appropriate authority to decide about the rights of these petitioners for the grant of hawking licence in the area where they are alleged to have been hawking Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the respondent MCD, let all these writ petitions filed by the petitioners be treated as representations by the Zonal Vending Committee. The Zonal Vending Committee shalt take a decision on the claim of the respective petitioners in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in Patrt Vyapar Mandal's case (Supra) and also in terms of the National Vending Policy. It is also directed that the decision by the Zonal vending Committee shall be taken as expeditiously as possible Il and till the final decision is taken by the Zonal Vending Committee, the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo. However, the respondent MCD shall ensure that the petitioners do not operate in non-hawking zone. With these directions, the present petitions stand disposed of. DASTI. l t4,20LO A IAW I(AITA,SH GAMBHIR, J. May mg l c C\ \tt o 37. $- * -r Ttu'ough: Non3. VEISUS Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, AND NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocate. MCD v/.P.(c) 330312010 RAN4 VATI w.P.(c) 3307t20rti GOPAL MODHAK Through: MCD Through: 40. + w.P.(c) 33Is/2010 RAJ KUMAR Through: MCD Through: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT w.P.(c) 3282l2oro SHzu AVNISH GUPTA \.' 38. + 39. -r Through: None. versus MCD ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. AND ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner None. VETSUS ..... Respondent Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. AND ..... Petitioner None. versus ..... Respondent Ms. Saloj Bidawat Advocate. 1/- ,< AND Through: None. versus \-, MCD ..... ResPondent Through: Ms. Saloj Bidawat, Advocate. AND 42.+ w.P.(c) 332012010 MUNNA LAL Through: None. versus Through: Ms. saroj Bidawat, ^J"lTi.:ndent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJTV SAHAI ENDLAW