Raj Kumari v. Ndmc and Ors

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. • :l< ,N: THE-PIIGH court OF' DELHI .. \IEW .DELHI "Reservec on.;'

21.0.9.2011 Pronounced on;

24.10.2011 .•P.fC) 1: arid 525/ ./2.0il • IN-THE ^ I • , - ATTER'S OF- ' bHlV NATIil CHOUDHARY .....'Petitio:ner in, \A/Ti(C) 4743/20.11 ' RAl^ DASS .. ; •-• • Petitioner in W..P,)^C) '5254/2011 ' versus' IMDMc &. ORS.' - •Respondents QLlOII,.- 2601/2011'';. • 2602./201.1;-:' 3057./2011 .4347/20111., 4559'/.20'li., 4593/2011. 4610/2011. '.'46501/70111 4651/20111, .4649A20i-i! 1 ,• 477 7/7rt-ii'i ^ 4739.; biQ51/2iil3l_le—5jtgZ/20'll, •4775.(''''20)1 j, 4827.7201-1, 4923:/20l1 5Q28/2Ql1./ 5247/2Q1 :ll.^ 52J5572011,, •525.7'/20-111

¶11_526lZ2j}jJ^, •5262/2011: /7011, '57.64 —^—In " « tf..,(. ,g"SJ .IL. ,H., LB O >31 / wi,li.JL JL r •) Z O '<41. / (111. "1! II • ^277/2011, 5292/TOll,. •5312/20ri; 5317/7.0111, 54021/70111. 5403/20,11,—5420/20.il,,- 5405/2.011.. .540n/7O1l . 5410:/70.tii • -5.413/2011. 5418../.2.dll, 542S./20115444'/2(Jll." 54^73/21, •-5484/.2011 / 54'85/.SOU . .5497/201 1, /.to1 1 5^-2011, -5504/.2011. .^,.^01... 2CM:[V~^0&/70-1 I: ————r; - ^ I ,1 JL .ILy • 3 3 y /! / Z O JL JL Kr o -SSQSTIOIJL—5iyA/.2Bll,' 5615/20.11. '56ie/201'1 •5618/2|MJLc 5627/ 2011. .. 5630/7.01 1 /-joii n ' •' ic-iii / r /ii ST-ADrt-n^fi " _ —I 2011^—5631./ 2011 ' 56431/ 2011. 5654/2011^_^J5M6j/20'll.. 57li./2011, ^^5717i/7011 lli—STJM/aOjJl^ 5729.720;li.- '573:il./2011. .57371/7011 • S785/2Oll,,_579l/!L20'13U •5.794/2QH. 5797/7.011. 5298/2011. -5822/2011.. '-.5-911/7011,. 5-'91 B/ J ' 5933/2011,-'V 5934/2011',, 593i5'/'201i; 595 '5974/:2jm^_jBgg^/^J.ll; •.6-;ii3Q/2011. •61011/7011 6116/""^])1.1. 6 II 1772Cm,__l2ll^^2011, 6119/20'il. ' 61 20/2011. 6116/201 612'1/2Q1 "£270 / -hl -n ' ,i-:.7'. ^6250/2011 &27Q/2pil^_i32/i^.2C}ll.. 6449/20.111 .• i ..f 6529/ 2£bll,. -€-530'/2011'/. 6531 /•7fIil'3L' 6,537/7o'11 • 6534Z2iai.^_^8/20.^^ ^M5/2011,., 31.S9/20;y:;^_3M6/2CI)llv. 434072011,.-; 4347/70l''i ' 43/20ij, .5.254/2Cli:E'l-fli.connecteiaf/natters ; Tage l of 23 / 4344,^jgLIIU.. 4345/2011., 434Q/T'n)li /irl-tcni/moTii .4352/2a;,7^^ "•437!3/201I 1, Ar^yA^'/^n-i j, 4389 /.S01 /•• •11 • /n r-n rt-uff-ii I- »-iN _.; I I r ^ A^\w ji, -biigZ/20-.tJ.. 4j9B^20il. 439q/?n-1ll h

44.017/701/ «aaz2pit^^ . 1^089,/2011.. 5oqiq) f7n1-n e^:^ -| .u-:^^ ~T:7r-^::rr-^ ssii^sfcisiS^^^S Present: W.P^(C) 47 "li. B. B. Sawhney, Sr. /Advocate wi Lakshay Sawhney, Mr. Ainkur Suri Advocates for the petitioners. th IVlr. Ankan Suri, Mr. and Mr. : Sunil jKuniar^ Shailani, M.r.'Satisli Kumar iJipaLni, Mil. |\|j<;^ Sahoo., Mir 'R MSin'oh''Mi-m"'• c- ' i-k/, .B.B. .Bhatia/Mr.-Mavjot Kumar and M M,r. Pranesh, Mr..Sahij Kapcior,, Ms. S'.' Sharma, ..Ms. Rani-Chhabna, Mjs. Ruj Mr. Najmi'.Waziri, .Standing ;Counse|, M San^y Sahay, Ms. Farida Satarvvala ,Ch •Ml. Abhimariyu Kumar and Ms: Rachna the respondent/GIXlCTb. • ' rws. ^av,,atan -Chaudha,^; ",, .H.S.: sechdeva, d. f 7:zo", S2S4/.W. « TV r: -Satish Chandj Gupta, atima, Mr. Jagdeep Kr. >)-ncler Kaur, Msj :Fer!da le petitioners. r. Bhupesh Narula, .Mr. o.pra/Mlr. Saphin Datta, .Saxena, Advocates;for - CO .ttCi .1. - \A/|- be •2; To '3. . re I Rajeshwar 'Rao, •; Mr.' Vik;Pa'm ' Agge jMohamniad;.: Ady-bgates fbr'the resjion' IR^AM si^ii dther.Repditers;^of LtfcaI pap'^i-g';hiay allowed, to see the, J^dgmeht?;:, '• i:<e referrecl tp the Reporter'orMiot?- "Stherthe0udgment,shb uId 'b poj-ted/Ii-r the;Digest?,: IX rwa:|.-^and Mr. -Shariq; :leht/belhi-police .>yYes,-- Yes i.

¶1; .Thiiico;mrr,on judgmeflfshallof tHecpetmons fitecli by:the. p.titione../«n,dors^:.^.;the; issued ra^f: invtl^d ,writ;-p.tti^hs'.ar^ ranyeriienc^, facts 4743/2(jll are . ®ra™ents adc reM^^^ ;;. revplves;a|ound^fe drter dated-15V07f^^^ ijniscellaheoLis appii:ca,i;ipns presented'-in ;W"P^ .1-6991/1^87 ' commonV '• taken'note ;' ' 2- ..The' ves' on §pme entitled -Gl -•-.- 'on 08:10 • ; deal with • the-'• peti jOlO by .issuing exl;iaustive;d;irectiohs.::' the resi.ectB,e arguments, addressed .by he leaded counlels for jpneis/vendors and the rSsppndent/ijDMC, rt ..woJld 'te app^priati We;afe,feaid order dated'07,2011, .hie,I Is the ';Bef,bre proceeding-to ^•/bone Pfeofitention and Is .rep,-bducei-| l-fereinbelovv:,- """=®l-«r?he:-app,fcanfs,aM,perusJ Mr.^cc) 4744/20I.f,5254/201^con;.ecfed n.a|ters''• r . . i J . • "i;' - . J". '.Page 3 of 28 \,,;, -v-- .. i- - I. . I"/'-' •3.. It ^Since •' irin pl;em;eWe|,' in^sm uiclj; .asl^ciiiap s& ,.fai% -nbt rbfeen, CS •ilegislatioa •Jhfe-; -n 01^ ..been:: en;acteEt:' by^,;:t|-)e^;f•:com pete;nt-iegiSjature, ^^we :^direGt;"tb:e;'parties •to;•.mam& ^'btaihiilg-lioiilay.;'''^ ' " IS j'vasy^v.the:]^ ;subjTi,iss^ •'cauns-er' ;fbr^^ 'ilie ;esjDpn;d^iTjt/NDib^C^tlnat: the.^afqres&id-;:oife ^issi:!eel fey the: 'SCipreme Court, gao:;.as -obtaining', on the;0(t^p,sive directions ^ a Ram fsupraV repOj^ted .calling •15:m-.2Z 'issued'ea -as (JJ3on. •;t|ie''1]3:3.i'ti,es.\to., maint&yij statii0, ' 1.,' V"••

1.1, ;can;,.9jily, be lnter;preted:'tb;;iTiean tlla't' rlier, pn-og;10!,2019;^ in'-the'rciid'.of.Gai-hic »1 ,shalli cQhtipuiSito. I'e rfiY: aperatio n,- :ihclu cl ing' the-adjiidjiGatoi:y,:mech:anism the;'iND-l^:C, Jn the scheme : p,resented"l:>y •Jtyfefdre<. the| rt ... .juclgrfient|.. ,tillvthe.Kap,jp;f^ "g.oyerniMisnt •'•'e aiDproved• in> the' siaid jS^'ta^^aw: .'Ipr".reg liii-ating- .urban.-stijeet-hayvkersy-iand^^^^^^^^^^ because tjl ife l^gisiatiLjj-e! haS; hot enacte|>-a, .law.;LiY thig'" regard; on or:li^fo;re .4/-:as:, .cli:rect;e^ the;. :ia|&|esaidrjp jt \carn;d:t-::'be' :• conten^;e(p .^by the. petitiOTers/^iendb:irs:J^ Lnn can 110^ ;ipii;9ei;,tie fliled;:U:p'. ^^30\Q6;2C .said Vac vending-acists;a vacLium, and.^the-l:i:nuing'Otq V.reguIate,., the activ;ities,,i^n theMxrOM^ risdib^t|):n In We.rna.nil;er •as.set outrin^the ; .afQresaic'|j:Lidgm.e..'n ' ':4;. •• ,-rd';' ; I'espond^ ; the-'Sgpi p iVB,'a.; b:rief•.backg Hbund. of:thje ^dispUte!^ pt/N-DlyiG \^alked this ,Gotri;t tliSi-qagh s:pme emeGo:urtj^en:deredcfira.ra,tii'ni2itQ:y fS-3/,zbi.lr 52sj4/Z0Xl 'Bti.i£6nne&t4d'<i%0tt:ers' ' . w.p,cc):4-:, learned,' counse( :For:±he proWi nent 'decisi-o ns. of-lich;-rejate.: to..pavbhi eht. Vt," •• Page 4 ofbiff•' " I ' -squatter • vs. NDM .y|hawkers, .starting, from the c!,ecision.jn :,tl:ie_;case, of SodJn Sinnh Ors. reported as .,( ••2 see 727, 03:03,-2Ciq6 passed' by. the\Supreme^^Cpurt-Vn entitled.' ' • • V]'' • . • ...... .S.Lidhir.'Nadan-TsnpraY•• reported as-'.(2 the interim .order.dated final j.Lrdgment ;in-the case-'of' •17:SCG 597 and ]astly/'the ;judgment|,dated' G;8.10.:20ld^jDassed:in..t^^^^^ case^of Gainda Ram fsunraV ;5..' Learned counsel the: respqndeiit/NDMG Ithe' petitioners/vendors for; tjraht of' inleriim'• 9rders .restraining pray.er o the. ,.espo|nd.nt/NDMC, frort removinglhem fror.:, the sites' occui3ied by •them till direction fsupraV. Su prenie Singh fq squatter. Ithe /engcrtment of 'arji. iapproj^fjatg' Ieg is ;|/Issued by the-Supreme: Cclurtvin, tase of Gainte-B^m |;She partiGularly oterratians made,i.by:'the .Gourt in-paras 40;and 4i:of.the judgnie-4l2ra_),, which dealt, w,i ation, ^in terms b.f the ,it in the ,case of Sodan the.: in^mediate ejviction of, unauthorizecl |iawl<e,-s and laid^erapha^vs qirtlHeTacttiafm the said case,.,the Supi-em^ fcourt. had dilTjctect;xeiTiova| :c;f unauirhorizecl,squa tters/l"!!awkers' awaiting, ^al-aliotm^i: of sitesJto lie allotted ^eligible claimants: ..arthep|ces.recom,mended;by tKe TI^|r.Ja Comihittefc,or:.suggeLted:;b,y •theNDMd. • V •withqut'^

6.,- Ag. Madan-^^' Gourt wa. •|n, in .the interinf order dat^d." 03.03v.2 imJsumi: the /fbilbwing: ofeeryation;'; 0;Q5j-pa'ssed in ISudhir made ' by .the' SLipren:ie -'^highlighted .the counsel-for the respDrdeiTt/INipMC:-•j' I/I/-.P.(C) ^f74^/^0J:X, s'zs-ft'/ioil '&^ohnected:ni^tmfis ' •; .. , ., . • • •• Page 5 of,28- ' -v. •: •V; • r. : •"White Authoritiiss •to. 566; to it';tl^al:,,thosevDei'son^^^ 'who lar carrying;-cMn-:;hawkta adtiA/ifiBs or vyh6 -%re' Squatb^ on: ., jD.LibIiG •lahcl •withotit, any, ;a.Li:thority; .e.N) en -iq•, ^a.cco rdange ' • with ".presen sch^i^me'vln -fci <5e,; are-removed-V" 'forthwithv Jjnis/; incJ-Lides :; unauthorized-Hawking, y' .sqLiatting,,:o:ii pubnc ^strejets,;•footpaths; and: pubJiG: parks,. ^inGlLrdTn;a;:pl3yground.the DelhrAdnnihistration :• to take^ step| ^Jmn:iediat;el;yyi;i|;'coilabored Ion :with'MCD and ;" NDMt'-Witln, jnecessai^y:-assista^^ ^ r-Io:rj.r . f-hQ ' /-I ^.uu. 'i' i' • • . ' clear tile.,- ijoads, ' 'Streets,Ai/footpaths Lipauthdri'ze|. ogcupapts/squ:^tters/h&\^ parks-kers;.i etc, .b;y ' " .'l'' V - ; '• •7'- - I As' ;tjb;ithe:-:jud:9nn^JTC^;d^ the,-case; lof for..vthe. •; respon.de .he rein be' !raU:dh; emph as is'^ vyas^:l£\id %!\th'e.;cOunse|- rH;/Ni:).iy|;G%.pji^:-pa,i-as w for^'ready; r^ference;--..'"^ •w.hIchy are' .rep.i;ocliiced •"2;80t.he' 4lew; Delhi ^MuF&ipai. Co^it submitted: its; ^Scheme.',We la^ve eoiisit , subniitted. biefore;^^s.VTI^•e:•iirea•,.Vvh /~l r-" • ' 1- ; — _i! - I

1.... • i imittee,; .Ji.asalso'" ered/the Scheniey.;'',. fails ^uncle'r NDMeT-y ose ;i;n the ^areasv.- ' \ .does;-,not.; create^'prdbleife#;,eh:as :thu^^ ur u,e .areas- ,Linder,.MeD..i. However, ..iii:,thJ saidvSGhen:ie Reference.has-" been^ madei-- to..ODersohs .^Wljio .do H;iot; "have •permission :! ' 'Or.: li:ceAce: miderSectiori .330 :of the '^ NDMQAct,;.a99i^:;but-^Who,;ace .Linauthorisedly contmrnna to :cari-y on; business. a;s hawkers/street vendors.^ They-' ^ ; .liave bseil described;asvthQse who :are ^^toiei-ated'^ in. tfe: ; • ; :'^lDI^C.area| We :faiki;o-understand: vioj.ates.;thei law. should:be-itc):ieratedv'^.Either they shou be -comp^lled to.,dbey;the;1;amorthe.iW aniended,.;rr-it:js;foLind.;%::erea^^ undfed-^ardshTp. Th pioblems, need 1:q be addressed by,;the legislature or tt : 1Lilemakihg, authority;....We}i;Mhw^ v.. i.s :fe:^t,:that, the -pilrsqris ;^AhHj|=alt-iif-^^^ specid! -.protectip:n;y :'i:h -Ac-t ^:iThay;be'sui' rnup:r; thv3ir:..;-r,c-^-,-'J::,^ dbserve-thatdf, •:catego'i:y':requi ab ly:..a-n!i ended- •y. e "'" • it--^ ^ •. .;W,P.CC):4.7k3/ZOXi^ 5 . .. I • '^-'7.^uiLciuiy.ciiTienaea Goveir| their:;,:cases :Q'iv:els(2:pe;:nu:m» squatters may j:ncrease;:^d^ ', . . j: , . ' ,Pag^&.of 28. .•'^. ::'4" ' --K - •' •••-i k: •• !r • , ^ , ;• - • y .i I V -S'-'C: •; • ^.v-' • • '... .• • • •• •" :''v. " 'A ' U '.. r.' ' ' i , > X. •- • . i. f: V'y •' ' ,;: ' ' • - •"'. ' i.'i •.2-9;.,,There .'hias been ho isejious objecti s:ubmittedv"^y NDMe whidn'^is axom^br Gertaih dire|ctions ,have;- however, .bee .this'-. Court. • We',- apprbvo the 'Schfei NDMC.- yi" o'n-t'd-thevSchein'ie' hensive'scheni'G:; h'sought for from ne; sUbhiitted by

¶30It is submJtted; befiore/^is thafthesSchemes whiih havebeen, ;approved,-by .tlni's Colirt -'must' be •subject to •any. Act or iples that'may'^bfe.framed in,^con'soj-iance with the IMational •Policy on.-Urban-Street =\/endors.- It' goes .without' saying that, we|.ha:ve approved,'the-Schemes as- •framed,, by .r>IGD and-; NDMCJf thelegisJature^interven^s :anc fi m-pes, another schei-pe or regi lErtions-goVerning; •such ScheiTies^:- •bhat..'.wiJ1,-; certainl)).;..sUpersede the-Schemes •pnepared.by^ I^CDva,rid NDMcVlt is well se'ttl^d ' thabany administrative.actioli^js•.always s.u.bject.to Iciw that .may b$ framed'by the Gonnpeteht.' ' legislature,.

35.; $ubjecl|; to .-the .afQ:i-esaid.,. modifications/chan,ges the; Schemes 'Submitted: by:;MCD ' ah,d are,';,approved.'; 'jhe said. ;tautlTorit:i^s appropiqate; step.s to-impl'ement' the T;i-\ . ^ ^ J. • - • t • i-i~n • , . _ ' in NDMC, the. sam.e' rsh.ali.'. now take' che'me.. forthwitn. ap.p'iupi.iaie: steps to-implement the. Scheme, forthwitn In-.ca5e.0f any c^fficultyfaoed by tkemvjn'implementing the schemed,-they shall, have-theliber^-- •CoLirt." ' ty to.,apply 'to .tHis • • "i 8,. Le(:«y,. in the reqpnt case .of :Gainda:Rarri knr..^^ i""-"--<. hiDunsel..forl:hf resBondaTi/NiiMc:siie upojn Rafas 30 to.66. to .state that .the'. Supreme Oou fact that ja^.struttufed i.regu.latio.i1 arid'tegislatiorv COntroI0Ijid.reguIate :th|e fuhdamentaI'rigilt;of lla\A rthe y-iree tier; disputes ••'i^edrlessa mec filled by the thpn Chaiipei-soji of the NpMG was:taken noie'o^by Sme Court in. pa,-a 72 ofthe afpresaid judgmentand in pa[a 73,it was then observed, as\belo.w: --- ' ' ' .-i .learned' 30, 32./i •:ou;bl;hat affid.avit the Supr W.P.(t)-4i fJ/2qi 5254/2011 a'"c6nnecl-ed rn'atiers t.vwas conscious of the is/urgently, reqCiii^ecl to gng;; .she'also' pointed; namsm.-; set .out in '^the. 'ti\Page.7of2S • P^'asraPh 12 ofithe affidavit,.Klia's.:been siriatidi fr ' :Autlb,1ty-which shall ailend Lo the .redresslal: of •griev&nfes-df squatteit ^ha^jcei-s;- tnaders:; Vresiben;^ ,:or a,1y ,jother person " he,a,.mg;. appeals ,against the, decision 'of .the Vendihq ''' Paragraph 12 .of;that\afritlavit is.s^t • ,. ^ ^Thei-e; shall, he^^ an. ^ q ;^ fonwa,^ding^,:/of •:,>pe#ti6n vfe&iyeld : by the ..,. •., ..Chd^i pel son,. .th:i5'- •Authority -. shall::;, attend" to . . •: ecliessal :of ,,,grieyan:Ges oF ;sqUatters, hawkerb '.U-adBrs. residents 05- . •• ;:^^^horrty-^nall .also:.; hear, ^app^als •againsf the , • dec sion of Vending.;Cornmittee (Main').V Decisioitis •.- •of thi$ Authprity unless.challenged.hefore a Highkr -Fomm or.in ajiy,,Conapetent Court;^ shall be findl ; ThiS;Authority shaJl^gJnitially'headed by a perscin ,, -. appo.ijted:. by^ the.?Ch,t,-pe,-soi^ .h&vi:ng :i!;2Ho •. ^ai-s.i egal ;or judiiciahbaekgi-qund.: there can' lie • . more than one-member in this Authprity." •' , ,|

9.. Afti B^r makin-g the^aforesaids pbservations^ in, Ithb Sup,reiTie| Court Went on,,to observe paras. 74'to 76. of the a.s,bejow;- ' •.! ...•'judgm.en ilV.P:(c) 47^ I; •74-., Iii .the .saa^: affidaivit, :-whjch' waj j:, Court oh-24y\ August,: 2010 it:has

¶1NDMC,: shall,.-QOniply with-the--orders j passed.by the adj.udicatory mechanlsir !.the scheme!and'which, has iieen-appro i for:the N'DMIC area,.unl.ess.such ord^-s : .matter pf challenge, before: a .higher' i. .other cojppetehtGpui't/v.r • -' i: oF.-such scherffesy: 'the:JiJwkers, "squattei-s ! and ven£lp.i:s must abide :by tITa:; Dispute" ; .scheme, mentioned^ abo-,e. :, Tlierg sh|,uld not^ b'^ ^ ; ,chi eGL.a:ppi.-0iach to tlnis-Court,by way,,Qf:f|-esh petition. !• ,, 0«|Dute •Redressal.; pipvided..in the Scheme. S2S4/2bll -at connected-,m;aC/:ers. -affirmed befoije bee-h,.stated that which .would .tie ^-contemplated In >ed by this Coui't are .made subject foruhn, orMn aq'y any or' 'Mechanism Page 8 -of Z8 y -x -• 10:. ft. •i/- M.-However, Befdrg-ao'i-Bune. 20^] Government is. tp enactaflavv'-ori tlw H^erpnT®'^ above or: onrthe basis of'' ineieor .sn -.i-haf->1-,^. . •thereof so cbnto.u rsof •that ;the; hav^ilcers may pi their.rights,"', • • ' • Y. the ^appropriate • basis of the: Bill apY ,'arnenclment ecisely know t|he j-« .i., l-llG fFliri|-f=» ni-i H-U^ ._- . ! ^ •: . ! .thB failu^^ on the-part jof thf leglsl^^^^^ ;by tne^sqprem^.Cfflrt |ln the;-case;ot:x;aind. place-a- s petition"e-: by the timel-inej set' out •' ' ' •• ! ^SUJ^rai; by pijitting/in ;• itatute on or.'. ;S/vejncloi3 to -lefoLe ^Q.06.21^11. cannot^.Ipe^interpreted. by,:.the mesh that-.''t • can: # """nd^'f -t,any:ptece o^flneir choice in the;:K |d^ manner-and without ahy 'bj:,structi6n unregula IMDIHc. .., •1,1- •. Lea ,, I • ' i.. .'.-v • ; iq iicileci . i-;;.e.ch;emeasset^.tinS^^ •^ben.Chai,person. of NffMC •b^fe';e ;the-S.up,-erne;Gpurt;,.hr.:Gaiindy-R.^ ££lSe_XsLlDITBV ••i-m^ • • ; ! v '• • , -:. , , " •. ! rpveci:.'by -the SL|preme; joutadjiii'tting,. tlj^ ijned counsel the 'repiDbncIent/l\lDM'C •paras,74 jand 75,. of tine'aforesaid^ judigment to • . ^ .: - ;•, • - —-,IUL Liie juispute y-.=sa,.c.e.. noticed..:t,e.S.pre,.C0.rt ,;^ " ™- ^.-diction an, Which•«j ta,<en p.o.b.thec™r«n:|ho,re0edin,pa.. Uiat thp Qr?hoi-r^^' ! • . • ' ' ! ' • • ' • 1 . " ,,ss^Msuew; vvas: tii,e ;e?urt; Shpfuither:su,bipittedtha^ ;;Gontin-ue,. their; 'traile./ piyiC.jurisdiGtio.i|, in,, an ^ •.or, objection fijom the •' partVeularly .referred .to state that the Id.ispute I •• I •dispute T . 221, 224 :("Jressal scheir e. set-out by.had lapsed on,30.6:20-11, -as claimed by the petit onere, then/tHe:::NOMC Act'proyjdes. an- , fallback to ensure ordejly' management,of vendoi ;:;reference Wasm.ade.i,. [^^^ contained'in'Sections of thersaid-Act. , ,12.; • It Afvas-fLI rthe r argLied, by,the coLi:n-sel for'theirespondent/NDMC that the applicJ,tipn^filed.by|he^NM Sugenie^ourtJpjujy.SlJn praying //iter:a//a foj-..eiten.sibn ,of tim'g/'to ® : the IMDM :.Ram's"cR -rai ea,. as per' the' scheme: mentioned^ in : hawkers/sq ualtters in :he judgment inj.Gainda e-fsuipral. till. • •regard/} ti5:e:ehactm:eht|f:a\|:aw;,by:^^ :c|d-no'f yefbe^n finally disposeckof by th sl-Supreme: Gouitatthe tim:e, of.passing-qf,tKe:ste% the. othe^iaiipHcation-fi ed by Pne'of hawkerj^yeodoi-s.^pray^^ aJ/a^for -,jstraining the respofldent/NpfJC froinvgj^nfirig Jefthazarf eights -ipky "di-aw ,of'-Iots, % r a|-iot or any . 'date V;thereafte-to -lihe •w'hners of the tient, which wajs, to^be ' ' ••; • .. j :y\ias, alsO' spending. held :on 1. 12..05,2011 consideration before,, th e Supreme Co.tli-t. Hen-ce, .no,, finality'.ciDuld .be |o the o-rde,- cated I5:7.201.I;«h!ch can ;only'be consldifed :an iNsui-e tltrMne;final;disposal;:|E::ane;.afofe^^ Applications ai: the -.attached. , interim :i enactment of a legislation. -13. Qh affidavit-w.p.(cy4/ merits/learned counsel .for.th,eM-esponci'ei dated 01..08.,.20.11 Tiled by 'the Director •4s/20.ix^ S2^j4/-2(OLE.I Sc cohnecteid matters '.! ' • 'i.' ij/NDMC referred .to.-the (Enforcement),, INDMG, Page-IP of|'2S "eipwit, was• stalled Ihaii :i3,ursLiaht ;to/thg pUblic nolide' jssued by ithe :N'DiVjc;. 'iiwiting-:/applica :i,64is::SLm.iqlei; .;tKe; NlDilvfc? t):j:lDa,lpv •Street /epd'ing :.Scl-)eme-: in-the, year' 2007, ^the /nespondent/NPlvicf-received 4367 applications.- 'Tlie'.docui ?*ents:-required :by the ajo Dliqants for registration • Hinder tl'i 2Scheme, inckid.ed a proof of.'.age/ dqcLimentary proof/affidavit dl 'ihcbme/ proof:of..residence,, proof in .suipport of ;for the'-purpose-of anhu , •s pe cia I -G.ate g d ries Ii1<e •• squattinc the •.folio shortlist andicappeci; KasJ-imiri 'mlgi In the 1\IDMC.|are,a, if'aiiy. :ln para 4;p[ A|ing criteria, :Eippi-qved/ad;ppte;d by the,, -ants'etc.. and (droof of^ •the ;afores,aid. a|ffidavit, Vending Conimrttee. to llie' eli,g|ble,a,pp licaints js s,6t piLit;,-" 4; That the;, criteria ap:proved/addpte ^eligible il ••by:, the Vending , -app.lican'ts , is as • !. ,Comn1ittee• •. under:-^.' I^(m) the'app|lrcants should be resident wilh nis • ,j, name;Tegis|:ered.in electoral' rollsias-pef abstract bf 1, photo [I-Rol|,or.ERG Ceiltifidate, • ' ' .•of •Delhi with ..his'. The'.appli.cant should -be a major,; years-of - e certificate-0 "(iii) The 'af records of . Go.vernmen ge •as.'. per valid birth;^c r.schbbi ceftrfiQate etc-. ..' piicanL-.should be a need^A-as per incoiTie, DC,(Re.y.enue)^'or as .vulherabifity records 'pf^ ; of MCT o.f Delh;i, (Samajik.Suvidha SanganH,:" viz, with over iS' ertificate .''.or. age j I 1.1, v-'aii iaju<. .QUVI vulnerable ?hd-most vulnerable catego'y);.

(iv).The. applicant :sh0iLi-rd-' be regi.sliere.d.'a-s per MDMC .Srrpcil- \/otn,/-!i-'h- • ;-,-i ^ •street.Vendors ..Scheme... %e .policy.-^ applicant shoulcf be available. ' Verification' of 'tlie ^hnf.l^ •'^'^^-^'®Pendent.-:fami,ly /memb should not ;be .employed ,or shpuld-vnolt.have.'any oth tehbazan/vending -or any other busifess'.".premises ueim aq.npi record verification .of l\IDiN1iE/M(iD. -. , ,21" Br in W,r,(c) 47'f3,/2pii^ 5254/'.oil ffi,connected.matters •' Page 11 oj:28}-/

(vj),--Prefere ;pl1ysica:ily above- •.•'•60. (necessary .may ^be'given nee.''Will ibe .given •.•l;o/ a|: •hanclicapped•• ,br"i widows" Years; or'", Kashmiri• m.ic certificate •to be submi't't'e i in the above cniteria)';". j:pJicaiTts w.ho ajre or; senior 'citizenS' fants: -. or,SC/S.T'. ;d,":.&ncl.relaxa^tion. •14:. •• As pr the respondenyNDMC; :j:he categiry^Wise list -ofjeligible : teri^s of.tlneM^Qresaid;,;c:iiitei;i^ tolialled :o 3878 ";.,;slnbrtliste|d ;:,app|jcant£ ., • applicants... -'-Thev affidavit -.cIatKl;p]l.oa.2a^ • tin at-, the ,.:«ponaejt/NDMC-has;|dentifiedJ83"ew:spacBs^ •remainih^^ spaces ideiujfied ty theThaFejaCommte ^a.ea, •or ariotmeht:; .tfius ta;i<log;the/liotal nyi-hhei%:.of.:! It^was furtherestated th; ' which ...w 2re a-vaiiabrs; .;,i • a.vailable . listing of spaces to :3B6. . • . the •Parliament Street, on security' gr ••. Hyovers.and .Metro-Stations atvarious locations. ,the num!)^,-of; authorized 'tehbazari sc|uatters;'ha ; 404 .in ,n • claims/a t. due to factors ilike de-Qunds;; constructio.n -..of ' • - • ' ' ' tIte ••NDMC jurisdiction,. chinged from! 34'8 to th:Q;.-ne:s pond ent/N0 MC .Place/ •Sa'rojinij.lMagar,' Jmber. , The-numbei- 'Of appij-cants, •Who qe. vending. unautlnoriseclly .;^ttConnaagh ' . !. ParIiamer1j: Stre'et•-andj S operating, -is qanpath areas aiid in whose, favour, ^taius' guo .Stated to b.e 323-in numilse ., orders ar '. ;that sinl|:|: ly .because^the/nanies.of th.e:peW tigure^ iivthje: eligibility' list'^drawn^^by' the'.NDM.(3 I- •The;affidavit lasserts ^h:p-,3re registej-jed^^ith' the ;frespondent/NDMG,- . • cannot,'b(3i. treated as^p-tsof of theii-..,regu-|arly vending; in the NDMC•area and .nor dbes it.confec on^ them any, enforceable •-V ested' rjght to eipsure-a

5.directly .clepende;nt.t)n '//'-Psge'l.'l of 28. r' .vending-. |i.aGe,:for them m^the:;NDM:C ar(5a,,..which:j W^P.{Cr47.^y2011^ a;conn.e^tedUtters :> -k-the num petition,e . CbL petitions equaliy , authority ^ei-M.paces av.iJable, Thus/it was caJtendecl that nefcr the possession of any number of chaiians; nor the absen.. thereof cin make a.cl,fferen|ce,/for the .-eason that chaiians cannot ?to claim; any: vested legal Vight to squat i|isel for .the: respondent/NDMC .asset; •are not rnaiiptainable inasmuch as -th -jlficacioLis alternate reiTier'v. nF i • I . ''' ^PPi oaching .. the appellate :ConstiL-Lited -, b^/ the 'Chairperson, NDMG fornn the basisj for the at a:given spac4. . " i.ed that the' [present ,6 petitioners • have an •for redressal pf'their

9.1eyancei and failureion their part to have; approached th. fending omniiLLceis not on account of the fact:t|-iat the .s.tid Committee ir eluding PPolUte authoiiLy js not functioning, but because they have found it t-^Vpass. the; aforesaid forum .nd::appmach thilxourt i at extensive m.^asures more con directly, vihicb is not iiermisslble: Sl,.i stated tf hdve bee mechan'is • .

1., •2. • 3'..,

¶16She Itaken by^the respondent/i.DMC.to constitute the adjudicatory II by way of athree tier system in the following manner>i - : Vending Sul:iXommittee (Site of.Spaces), . I, Vending SutiXommlttee (Heath and Hygiene) and ' J ; Vending SuiaXommittee (Enfoi-cement)., I' stated that, the creation of .the aforesaid three Vendinij .Sub Committed, Vending Committee (Maln),:.as also of 'Which wa hawkers, the appellate .authority [; the grievances' .of :the squktte,^, : • °^'^^''''P®'^°^;against'the:deGi£j^^ 47A3/201.1^ S2S4./?Q-h ^ ' ^ .r ^ connected matters '•'- Page"13 of'Z8 r J the Vend considerc approved 17: Per •i;:- lig Gomrnittee (Main), was'.placed before the,Surpreme-Court for •tion-and the.said three tier adjudicatoi in the judgmeiTt ofGaiiida Ram VsiinraY y 'mechanism w|as duly contra,, learned, counsels'-foi-, the ,petitioners/vendors,' .who appeared joh •different elates, vehenTently oppossd .the aforesaid stand' . "taken by the respohdeijt/.NDMG and asserted that the scheme floated by the respondent/IMDMC.for regulating vending act vities. in, its jurisdiction had lapsc>i!l on 30.06.20.jtl in the absence of the en.actment of'a legislation ! I ' . I : , . ^ / • • , ; as per directions of the jsupreine Court in the case'of Gainda Ram irsn^r.^ •and as o • tlie • im.p'l Suprenne. 'i| date, there is no scheme in existence. Cdtion oF thei -aforesaid order of statt It was canvassed that •s quo passed Iby ' the _ppuit on lo.07.2011 .can only, mean thalnrrespective of |:he fact whether the squattingi is legaj o,r:,il.legal, the :same" be :permited,to pn an -as is. where is' basis,, and,such states quo i|. to be conti nue maintainec! by all the parties till'a lavy isrFramed Iby :i.8. |V|,-, petitiohei Supreme a law on' : B.B. Savyhney,;- '.Sr. .Advocate ^/vendors submitted .that m, the case of.G pouit had. diiected that, the apprdpnate (government musfenact P'- that 'the hawlosrs may precisely kn.ow :rights, h.nce the. dispute ^redi^ssai medhanism |:.rovided for i,n the scheme mentioned^^ the aforesaid-judgnieJt could oRerate only upto ;30;06,2011 and thfereafterv^t W.P.(C)47^ i3/2011^ S2S4-/2dll &connected matCisrs the legislature. appearing , for . the ainda.Ram fsuplraV; the le sajd scheme would Page 14 of 28' . .. - ' •automati •given-to •in view' o :iHy :stend^lap5!ed. Wstatedjln^^^ :He;orderdafed|:I5..07.2Dli:'diS^^^^^^ . ! • ' • . ' , . . - • • jthe-qualifying!;words, "as it,i,s;-G.tjtainin.g today;'..:- He argued tliat rthe-^dileme £PWnijing:/Co opefSte; as•gl^ counsel for the I'espondeiWNDMC.then;^ was JlB'.g;ood reason!for the i'.resjDondei was slate MS''that e 'to mean; nj:/l\IDlvic to,:;Have i^efi-aJned fraten-iioldiiri^pAb--draw^•Qf d.forthe,samei.day/i;:6,;;is.g7J!0n,:ahd:thcit^ jeiTthe .rsiSRonpent/NDMC hadjm tlpat there Js. np SGii&ii1e in; p4aee after'30 •wiijch matter that in^vpajra' 68 pf the; aforesaid', judgment in >t:h isuemarajl the writ;petitions and .the.hitf;^ applications fM-ed-beforeihe •Court were disposed of,.wifli clear and specificdirectionsAatthe f hawldng, and stree:t.^.vs;n|iing could iei -regulated ;by tlie ijramed .fay tli^, NDMC; a^d.^^gD.'Qnly upto•• 36,06.201 4rid not It was .assorted GIT behalf&f the petitioit,efe^eMo|-s that^as |he directions; of the.Supcerrie Court that cjuo !ii to be pterpretation,. whielS 'is-M-,. irrespective ibf their Aperniitted to ;Cd,ntinue pied.:.by the.m.- •j-ed.;^es;sa^•m,eGha1islm ,.is -5;iZ0;ll, -forthe! reason • • ^ ' ! e:,:Case;.of'..G.aind.a' ^Ram Supreme problem schemes thereatte :on .date; iiiainta:i.n.Gj:l by the :,|D^arti|es cap p'nly'be®iyen on? jaw is ultimately ^enacted by the:,.Parliame leg,al status, all the^;petii:ioners/veh.dpr%..woulc|;.,be that till, a .squattiPg ^havA/king -at the sites-that haye; -been.odcL 1'9.- .,lns(D|far-as :.the 'Copiposition-of••thfe^dispute/r concenietif. learned Senior Advocate^ fqr :the p^itfohers submitted:; that .conti aiy-i|p :th,e-,^i.nder^tancli'rig of'tinf!:Tesponci,enVNi:b the;scheme '.f^;>age of ! • I ; •' i-eproduGed.-at para^ 72jind:'73,in thLjCidgmentin wliieii:^was;actu3lly' rera ;lie.,ease of GainGla-Rpinn 3nized-b.ythe SLipreme -^ ' : r recogmze^ Siipreme ..,.;Court,:ancrptherit1s^ -i-K^ •—• , ••. ••.' ' •• i ' . •' "i/'C . •- • '•• i'-..' • • • • • • ' ' ' ••• ,;;of the aft)jesaid judgment W.,:• a'^schSgie fo,- y, :.rNDMC' are|. as :foriT,gl|ted jri the': ^ • '"approved Ve.ndors/2 •W 2D.. • With ban street "vendbrs for • - • ; I • • . which was ultimately fy 3^^,,^..: Whid. i|the scheme ,^ich flnd.i,^en,tion •sp.cinLl.y in ^^:-|he ^fono« ^ Sop^eme CdJ.t " / :.was canten|ded that:eveW;o,tHen,,se, t,.eStional Cafe,:,t.r.to,-y Deih; « J=rsu.d,^use. CZ). p, , , naiiy. of sta^.us ^quo on; 01,01.2006v•^ any :uc,g,.ent,:decree'pr;p.c|e.6fanycourt,^^ • .Mnauthori'z ' ' . - . . • • i • •'.l^etiLioneVs ::tinthe:en,^tpnent:o,a:;,e|,,ati™ ,an sLieeL. ,n Delhi on .the basis of.fine National Pdlicy'.on Urban itreet • \/pnrlnrc-' TArir-> jz' • .• ' • ' . . ' ' !" . • • , ... ,• • •• •' •• • ' 'V-' 1d:de»elopnnent. ;Thus,.itVw^r,,b,^^;,,^ on behalf if the, jendo^.thatpey .were entitled tp g,ant,df ihb,:in.:prpt 3,.p9 framed' oh 9i^(-lj:the :Speei;cif jiefeiehce .lo, the Special' -Pi-ovisions:' ..Advocate :i||- the petitiiiners-jtated; dnat' the ::|d .d«elopme"|;" used in^the;definitbi olaLile has^ td ^ context as t -^ct, learned. :£ieni:o:r l''9seunauthqriied , . be-seen In-the same-P-epctoachneft':has.been defeed^ i : 'Pags.:i6 of 2d whe:reiiVMt is .mentioned, that putting temporiry;/semf-tempdrary.or pel maheirt^ structure'residential-use: c)r comm 5rc,jal; u'se or any ptiier use, and tilie: placement •of goods bn'the pavemer ts by the petitioners is liable'tojis'.termed ,as u-nauthorized use'for. niaintnining status qub under •.tine. Spec ' hiade' ,b'y •' Supreme ^1, Pi^.oVisions , ct,.. ,•. Mtich'' eI'p'phasi.s was jhe;resj3;ander|:t/N,D^1G' in :its'interim app Court-in.Gaincla RanVs-case fsupra) in Jl .laid on.the'ayernneiTts-. ^ ' ' ' ' i /. .. '' ication filed' beljdre, the. ly ,2011,, to s.uiDmit that the ;resp:ojident/NDMC.-|tself: :had; stated in: the appjiGation, .tihatr^he Ijdd .lapsed, anjd therefore^,; the-only interpretation; that-|Ca;n 'be -.Qw.o- ,6rdei' .,:pa§sed; by ;tUe: 'Suiireme 'GouiS/on scheme^ given to .the/,^ status ;:a:fl;er 30.05;20 15,.07.20il can be th.at nb .-schenne vvould .exist thLisr. the benefit•of. theISpeciaIProYisio;ns,Act oilg1-petitioner^ .,He submitted' that the .phrase ^tn^et vendors'.has ib:een ' clearly defined iind.er the• Mationai;Po1icy' on Urbar Fleliahce;\fyas ,placed in the/as:e; of: Patri^ Wanar:m; MCD_lovvh .l-iall Ors;. ;repolted .as;.;.(2009.)7,,l2 •S.feC: 475 ,anei:.the 11 .and' t..to be extended to the' :Street' Vendors, :2',G,0.9,. andal Delhi ri^eLd/t ' ;• provision r Court.'ha that even' the 'S|upr6iTie I' of. the-Special P.rovisi.bns. Actto-..sLibmlt, j,recognized ;tjheVfact:ithat:the:Spaciy,Ri4,« Act. is the ^nly Central: .governingjthe fieW/arirf ,.ffi firimacy,' ovir :otlter Statutes; pnd administrative jCrders.,' It-is thus ;sti of the'NCi MC Act' cannot be ihyoiced by'tlie respoi Act is.not ifl conS6nanpe.:witli:Artide:9e,o{..tlie CanstitutiDn-^oPIiidis/aii^ •vali'cr tiiL.the' |end'•'. of •fLirtherm W.P'.CC).47 3re" the' Spepial -Rrovisions :Act J3eihg ^•3/20X1^ S25.4/UU.1 &corinecr.'ed..jTiatters ted. that 'tlie. prpyisioris-deiTt/NDMC as the saitl .. . , I . , , •'PageJ.7'p'S;.2B,.'',: Decembe ^ can; -Mr . p,'etitione I • - n;201;]:,. no grd ^secl. K V-ers in:cierogatlqn,off the, prpvis.i,ons of the Laid Act j S.K;,j Tripa ihi; ; Advocate. 'appearinc • -|/vendors^ saLiight •em-bejlis1^^tlie^subrr -fo.i: ...-some- . jof , the issions.'of•iv|r.Sa w'h n.ey, Si ../Advgca^te and reHed; on-the ordersj passed.,in entitled V; A,LithoiTty|-;constitMted..jundet cWspute •i'eclressal' .iTiechanism Ifor'•the ; NDMG.' ar^a, has-not ^b^en .fonctioning-which from aVp|rusal-of thejordeK dated ;P8.0.3;2011: p^sed in'the :a|Foresaid ,;case, whelreiivthe Courptook notice; of;the:claim';df th^^pedtioneij/vendor theiein-I.O' the. effect [that. inspite-;of .;prrl:ers passed :bythe Appellate |allowing sqLetting,.at a particular sitey ' ipcling..GoinTi^iillitee. as to his-eligibility/th to •qrg.e:: that, the ^^A^pellate i , I Autlloritv • .' \K: by.the\y ,• . the poli:c statement till a'.fi.nal detenilination e'. responclent/NcjMC and >.• ' S- • # I distarjjing .his^adtivities.. -,^^ t of .the counsel fon;the respa.ndent/IMDl^ effect th^t the appellati; auth.ority,;:whose .o,rcle:f W the petitioner thereHX Yas: constituted ai:eas:id: later |nc:tlor,ing.for|he NDMC aireas as-wBll for the.ire^ i|e^was:no sepiai'ate appelJatg^aLitho.iity-foKth.e » sul3sequejTtly, :in. accorfe.rtce,«ith .tiHe^ldiem tythe::^ .Court, .the Chairpersoh, NDMC hSd.ycqnStituted' Started fu; •'V'^ tiling, 'thei .C -was recorded to,,the as bei'ng relied upon by -•,:a 'separate' la up.reiine 3pel,|ate .'authorit'j'Jl-or the, .NDMC areas., ^TlTerefare, appellate' yajjtKarity : ,:,;,^P.I^°'"te(:Nai;liei-had.c|5ased to have . V\Lp.(C) ,4743/2011^ ^254/2011:8^ connected' matters. -Page'lS of 2B '• ' t • ' • ' . . r." ; was. thiM,,-confenclecl . • , aforesaid on -..behalf tfP the "petitjo order,cFearly |indicates•that-tlie: appelIate i|ot;fLi4ictip:n:ing lers/vendors .tlpat.,;the- /authority in-the NDIVIC areas'is-r 3ovplaiced^onr,the,rm.inutes;,p^^ - Vending 4ommi1tee, M.03,2.0lb, to -: tfere: actual y-.Jat|ing/y5ncDng \yffyerif(ed^ ^3,;, •, the of tlnfi^pefti|w,-s/«.enaQrs:^ -iD^epared. ^y•therejpondent/ND^jc:fo^Ko^d^ng•t^^^^^^ of the respondent/NDMG:t6:claim.thattie.'^ vyto had Eied _a.nd fouipd to;: be-; eJig-ib:le; were Vdot;-entitled to •squat: at |:es in-the.lMDljlC area after 30"0,(5;2011:.- .f 22/ ;[^eJ)jan,Ge .-was ' als - tine iTiQutn _ • • i • been ver' various, s ' 23., . In., contentid Irebuttal, counsel -./For •tbeV:'nesp.ondfen ns of the: 'pet -. ... ' i • • • subraissip.ns, asseI'ted enforceaiile right, created ,on the.''basis of the-NDMC,;:f<^,-claiming-srant :of inte,-im:.q:fde^^^ in .th^,rfavour.\ Sh|e.again; •refen-ed '^0 paras 6:8, 69, 75, 76 and; 7.8 :pf: the jug.,tent i^n.the jcase-.of itionefe/Ven'dprs' and winile that the petitipnei-s did t/l\li:)|V|C. .disputed.-' the ^reiterating her.eai-|ier Mipt: Kave any;;, legaUy .eligibiiity :list, drawn, by- -; Gainda .rsiipr3\ :read 'collectively, it' .js,. clear that^^Hrpetitioners,;^nnot .clbim an :,, .entitlement to :j,ny in|erim^.orde,-s asVsoUght.^bynhem: irt^trie ||ii-esent . , proceeairjgs. -She.farther' stated .that/even. otherwise, ::the Ispeciai ..Revisions Act .relied :^pon' by theleftioners-l^fe/duly^ recogniiecl .die :o en1pha.size"that :when't le•'.aforesaid ,paras.,',are 52S^I-/201X Si connected matters '•Pagel9'o^/Z8.. sellernes ;of Delht Ijii-epared.by the local\autHoi-ittes-in.the Ni^tional Capital territory regulation-pftirban street iendore/ ^Ta^substaritiate-ine,said >rt, .sheidrew^he attentiori:qf WnisXpurt'to-the pream^^ Act,•_which-mentions the authprities in. the NatioqafVcapital :^Te,Titory. of Ddhi;^for regulahphi of ui'baiT street vendors in :ac£.-dahc6fvv,ith'the National Policy op Urta,||sb-eet,t'endo;r5,:,ZOQ9 and:tlg:jN1aste;r;p^^ afo resajcl" - ' ' ' i the" been im|3;iemertted:'^and •further ,th;at '; rhpre' tim«: lmplemenj:atio.n-of..the schenles!regarding .halters .^nd .^Mrbaij ^sti^eet yen do rs, i$- required...for; pro.per ^ fPecific'reference was? iiiade UDy the le I arned cpunsei |fo-r-the m res pond firiVNDIMC.to Sectio.n -ZdjCc) of the Spebiai .Rrovisipns Act, which defines,i;|e.phrase.''encroachiTient"VtD 'daim thatMt .does not o^er tine petitioneij; "i"'® a™,sq,u;attei-s:- |?arth6rreference was madje tp.the. provision^ pf Sectipn 3 of thei Special Provisions Ac which; containis a'lion olDstante dause/to.,state that,status'qup' wth regard'to the encroElch,ment 01 unauthorized development as on'. Ol.Ol.ZOOS' provisio^,i. was . in., the context ;of ,,the- .definition . of ,the; phrases ,"encroaejimenf^:artd"-unauthori2ed devetop.ment;^::,;et-out in Mne definition clause jf Sections. •2(.l)(cX and; .:respectively-of :the |sp.ecial .Provisio.| Act and thus, the petitionsi-s/Vendoi-sdid not qualify underthe aforesaic |enactment forclam>ing protection as ildne'of the ingredifents.set out in thi^i provisions of the.aforesaid •enaGl:ment.are;found-to existiin.their W.P.CO 4^43/2011^ 5254/2011 &connect^matters . •i r I r i r ,hientione.d' in -the ,said .Page 20 or. 28 •gasp.- It: effect.m;!' •lastly-ti;ll |/as .sutoiWtted that:th^ |ie. year 2007 aridJnas bfeetfi^itendeclHrctBT-tin^^^ tihieJand pecembe,:;2Dll,ao;eS hotige^ any: ^-ctjVity .;on,Ger tbey;: have., b:eenVnenaovecl by:'; :similarfy: :'th& Sc|ieme of^ 200:9-tioes-/rFot. eiTtitle^t ,un.|ess havSbeen;anotf|,B :spe||>,.te.. the aforesaid .submiss.i,^|,^ ireliafioe was;, pjace ,gn. Gurnann'' :he ciY.i^,.:aLit Inoifty a ntl. :Jie; .reg'istrants to -sqiiat' Mnterpireti auE: neRarted, as^Wsg)v)|;s|gc, >0 the ,,3tdgnne,nt;^ W^ tt^ repoi:ted".|£is AIR'1991 c;..j^Su':• ,,U.; ••i':;';' .-^r/• ^ 5;:bf^un:cJ'e;|:standihg ;the repo-rtedv^s AIR>991;;SG expres5,0:-|,'statupuoVre^rence.was^ •(Siipp), see-394 to satmit that,|n.,c)|.d|naj:y 9"o' inipl;ies'die existing; slSCe of •time; «... As :^c|r the lUafional Policy on Urba:n:stree:fc:Vehdd,ES,,:counsel for-tbe responde|l.BKCstated thafbod.,!thi:% .find mer,t|yn .in the ,decision .of the Supfeme Co|t Sajlltaijea .and ;(t was only^ ai^ten takuig; (ntd .policies, ^,|d ;tl^.e:;coart_ directed;«e:.rnj^^^^ vend,ng..tiro.gh: leg,siatta>,:ttwasr \- I T' •' :i:^ :-l aI:euinnotati6n; ..the s:at any gjven pD.i.pt.:pf m the. case, of'gainda consideration ;tb|e ..said •• •: Page;2x :af 28 delivering jthe judgment;date^^8.10.-M10; the .Su||;eme Court tool< notice •: ^of the NC|- of. DeJhi Laws^ CSjsfecial •Provisions)-Act; • up to -BO:. |2,2010, . apart from noticing' the ' .(Piotection of Livelihood' anct Regulation of Stre introducei; • ' • • -1. ;20D.9^ .which was .valid VIodel •Stre.et Vendors et Vending) Billi,-2009 f by the Govemnient .ofJncHa/^iviinistnV/of,^ Housing &i Urban ,PovertyJleviation. She stated^that•nothing- •ne^^no:^, being sulfmitted .^: ,entertaino;por any purpose vvhatsaever and all the..grievBnces raised by , the petitioners . can ^easily be ^addressed: before' the ,\jending. ...., CommittEje/appellate authority p,xlerthe:scheme-Relating to'urban street veriding:ijn .the NDMC area, vihich fora continue to;rennairf functionji/even after.BO.q/ZOll. .- '. • .26. . Thisrcourt has heard these matters at/jeng . different [plates. .; Various: counsels .for the petitioners/v^,dors aind^the -... Standingjj:ounsel :fpr the .rsispondenVNDM,C Had|-addressed thei Court. .. . .Their i-es|,ectiye arguments have .been rtaken Hrte pf: Both -sidejs j^ave •: ,i™de =tijenuouseffo,rts to :6xplain-What the. status quoortlerr^ .:•lS:7;20iJ.|.,passBd .' by the., Supi-eme vCourt inj the-, cas^ pf ^Isalnda .,..R«I^t|l,implies.::the:7e,m^^^ • ,:..of,.the pip,oners/vendors. :is,that the Istatus;^^^^ read-'with-^he. :- qualifyin^:;words, "asrit Is obtaining today", sufflxedrtp the order; cin.only ^ ;:^^,'-^;^^"-P'VtbatasPn:date,:i.e.,^,S.7.201:^:th,re-wa^^^^ operatlpn^lin the .DMC areas to regulate Vending activit.es and tif, a',a« th. since-17:8.2011 ••pn:. :is "'"'-"aily^enacted brthe ^tegisla&refall the..pE •• I ,- , , • T--/ " I 'hen-leg^l s«us,:ca..o,u..e at^^i,"-en. s, ' . ' ' • • , l^-v.,bee| occupied ;by:tHem,; Kis a® asserted Status.qt| 0,Tiers,passed .by the Supreiine Court; t CO Ifusion litioners/ ii'Tespective of tes tlfal-that,in .'the teeti of the Te •res.ponclent/^ D|Vlc. in . «itlope,Js/v,nd..s. dlfferent^slte.; which ,.:detMn.ental, ive.e ' , ;ha. ass,.n^,. and,belligerent: to those,'wha^ve. bee.:.;fo.und .eligible! by the ^ ^ responde|t/NOMC,to,- Being allotted, specihc .....a..spaces wiihin^he . ..ND^.C ^u||sdiction-but.are-..being; threatened dueA laokioffurthei actibn . . - U.,s ,-epard Which is..pending .t.the end of.the.-esponderit/NDMc;.The .second l|,pb,of,submissions;'made .bv: the ..leartied:counsels•fcr the V '^=«"°™|/-ndors;Wasth:at:the-Speci^i:,P,-"visio:ns.Actwo come toj|the, rescue of the^Petitionet^vendors;;.'whiih; also .rlquires ,:malncenai,ice of sfe,t"s^,L,o as "existing; on 0i;in,2004 tili the ,Decembe|H, 2011. end 'of

¶27On |l|he other hand, the main, thrust of the arguments addreised by the coun]:5el"for the' respondent/ND^^c"vras that failed to lejnact air app:i-o,pnate l,eg.jslat^^^^^^^ in-ternns^ as the leg.islatLire..-has- -• Supreme .;-of the dedsion;' of the • i . • ;;i th e;;subseq uent :0rder Court in the case: of^inda-Rarnrsiipi-,;^ dated. ),5j^7.20n; directing. Parties to<.TOaintain:.tT,e status .quo. is^ It is obtainingj |on the said date can only .imply that existing..pn date are not.to be^disturbea,.'until the: the •, state' of aff^airs .as 'ights-of the parbies can ' I - •• • . •• • . lyiii-i ui Lne parqies can •be rinallyjdetermined .through legislation. It was'-submltted'thaj: while MV.P^f iT') -rf .11 ' r-^ ^ ^ i - W.P.(C) 47^/2011, 5254-/2:911 &co^riectsd I ! I i 'P3ge. Z3 pf ^2S v •< • . \ . P.ssing,|e Status^quo, order-.pn :lM7,2011,v:the .Supreni^ CpL-t_ vvas :consc)ausl of the. fact that the^ -fiaiilament? nad yet: to 'elaet a •,co,.p,-e,epive :fetfsiatiop t^ .egu.at.;u,-"e,. stfeet vending .and. in's^.h •; :.circu™ta|,ces, .it goes wiffiput say,ng.«at it .wafthe intert of thl Cp^f ., ,.^at the .en«re disppte ,-ed.es.ai ^chapi., as:neppg,teed i-n the lase of .. , Gaincla • ^Erp^wauld /continue i^^temain;!^ 3J ,3 pe urban street vending "n the;NDMC.ar|a; tilLbe/jegisikion in • regulate l- . ^^at reg,fd is,en«ted, ,tohe,..,t. W,. s|els«/tfetHhe^SpeCiai P'-P^i.ons:Actdidnptptovide;nvp,5te«ve,p,.h,te,,a.o.^^^^^^ .=t----^--. ::peiti.er.El.f: PPc.K:,the .definitifc .f encroaphpent-;; "Pr under'-unautl™ized: .develpp ' --'-ted |hat. even' Pthenv^isP: pending, an' appro ^ ;^°^^«i"---iahie.asa;f,i,:h,c.;optipnand.there,evant-prolisiL • "--3aid|enac..entwou:,acontinpeto;:^gu,atestreetvend.gactivityin and;the Pe«ipners/v,nfe cpuid.otc.in. a^vesteii right the NDMc .to squat a(:: any .site of their own. ! ' . • - •at'Pve, ii;; is appa;rei#;;that ...arg •; • "'9™-^t|have:bee^raised by both sUes'on'their Tient".- "It vyas further priate' legislatiojn,: the.." uments and cpunter "• - ' i.' • ' • • respective versibhs of- . Js, -• •• , vciiiyijs; OT tlTe ineaniifig ah,d th'e effpri-nf • -• •. i : ., . ,^®flE0L .orthe..status. qup,,orter dated :i5.i2011 passed by. the Supreme Court It iq ^ic ••• '" ' " ' • • "®ry a|3|3are.Pt, that the niganing i: - 'connected fnaaers • • li • . . , P.3g<3 24of 28 ' 'I ' a • r .the ;applications filed fefareP tte Supreme^ult^ by botIV the , appl;caij|:s/vendors anci,the respondent/NpMC/for clarifications, loh which-the afoj-esaid. Qi-der came to be\passed as .-espo:nd^nt/NDMG that the aforesaid.applications,were not di^bsed of whMe.pa|ssing the order^datecl 15:7,2011.;- The^faWes.are polesiapart on •.the qfestlDn pr import of^tfc o«SantiWhe,:effett of^the" . obser.aidns .i-nade by tte Supreme: ,Cou,ti:i,v:.the;^ of Gainda' .Eam[su|ral as. regard^ the approvaiiof NDMC scheme. ;They aije^also at' .loggerheads, on the composition- .of. the.adjudicatory mechanisiin^^in^-the NDMC j,i.jrisclicl:i.on.,;ad-ici the, innahhei; 'of the scheme;which is va-licHy bperatrng In-the-'p^ tj-eet vending, which;had; all •.been, subjic i • • • • • ' • • i't. .is. the .standl,. of "the viiTg,, as. also the •itlisntity: .' ilMC areas .for regulating ' :• hna.tterof-consid'eration • urban s •before-pe Supreme Court; in the. aforesald^-case.. The other, issues . •agitat:edj.| by the-parties; starting .fronVthe interi <>bse,-v|ons made t,y the .supreme court-the fon|ulation;of:lhe -scheme as approved:by the Supi^me Cojrfin the case .o| sucthrjla£toJsuBai;:.^^ composition •of the ^disputes ,i-edress| ,.echa.ism and tts'validity,as also the^,meaning of tHe status quo prdl^r, are all in att,rm.dU as botlrthe pa«es have stoutly Lfended' d.eir re|pective stands :which.are completeiy S:S with eaiih-other The.,onltj common g,-ound ,h,red by the pa.rti.s1s th. factum o^passing . Of .the, j^ecent -judgment .dated "08:10:2010: |^.:tHe;.:c.se: of| dated 15.7,2011-passed _• Page-25 df 28 ' / • 3retation, of th^ various and the'subsequent status;quo order W.P.(.C) 4

1.1 •• •' I I;- ..•i. the: SjUprerae Court.

29.: Th I'emams e:feun,a,n,ea,. Of^He cP.pute , present the-statut-.quo drcler dateiii; 15:7.2011; •Couit.^,|he issue w|,ieh is sought' to be agitated passed ;by. the |Slipreme ;tiefore; ;this.Cou|rt is that granted then'i, t • , ' , ji ' .-v-LJUji L lb indt -™, . ... f .1=c.«^ .p-espmive thei,^ -tatus,.•thusv.forbidding the' resp.pd|nt/«MC th,-eateni.g; and/o,,;.en.oving, the,, the d.freren|sites occupied by them inahe lNPMC ai-e^s/a.n othci-wqrds; this |bei,.g:,cal,ed-upon .to^sxamhV the i.neaht,.g;scope.end f cfuo prde,-.dated 15.07:2011. •Oh, «ne :qu3stion'pi'how to ascertain ''^--Pi^catipn ora status: c,uo otde. passed b/a cpuit; .n th^ , was:bbse,-vyd by.the Suprem|cou,:t«.at.t,.e.e><p.ess,p",;statM3.c,:up';is:undoubted,yite.^^^ .a.-nbigui|y and at times,, gives Hse fo;dpubt and::dSculty and'in lase apy party h| any.doubt: oiT the meaning-and. the :effect of -the stLsigub oi'der, tije p,-ope,:;cOu.se :fo. such a-;pa,-ty wpuldibe tp.appi^oach tie Court • ifications! ' ' i-. "; :ie v^Aave of 'the ^foresaid " ovieriopk^ one .iriiporiiaht Coui-t. is the-stat that liad||passed the status:quo orde,-;to;seel<.clai -^0. .[n j^ie case at hand, white seeki:ng to lide t - ' •' il '• ' ' •••• .status; c(|jo order,, the parties •have:Ghc)sen to ftcto,, |hich IS. that astatus quo: order; operates on; boHr sid^: -The Supreh,| Court has: passed-o.rders: requiring both , w.P-fc; 4>«37^£,a, 'matters • sides to maiiitain siiatus Page 26 o)f 28 quo. On|:e such an .onder of the Supreme Court is^ on; i-ecord/ t|e same not-only| binds all the.parties to.the adjudication^ .and;all the parties, civil orjudwy are required to,actin:,:accbrdance,|«itlrthe said'ori it equal!f| binds the High Court from, ihterfering wjth such an oi-dei; as the saicl oiUpr has ,bee.n passed,In litigediahs before.;^ne highest Cbuik of the •land. '•"';'^'i-°''ders;of:th|a,^Supreme ,Court on, .order is 111 clear signalito the Ijigh .Court as we order, iiidluding. an-i.nterim oVder, when,'the Sapl-erae'Coiirt, lias |directed for stafE,^ quo to be maintairfed.. In such circunisfancesl^lf tWs.ciurt Was .to grant >,stay o,-dgr in favour of the .petitionei-s/vendors arrayelbefore 3 of the Suprehne, Court, 3ependin,g •ehacth'n.ent of we1-0::LInclear' alipLit tlie .them to have, applied, to lieCOI'd/ :The statLis, qug ,.to •avoid-granting ,any it, .it-would be tantamount to negating-'the order vv/hich Tgquire' the; paities to; maintaiJi.,status •qli appropriEjte legislation:, Tf either-of-tha parties-jinterpreiqition .of.'the status -quo..order; it was .for' .the Su|;|rpme Co:urt: for ^clarifications.: thereon:-;./iddition.a[|y, the j-reliahee placed tjy: the petitloners/vendore o,V; the. Spedlr Provisions :Act seeking interim jlegal sanctity to' the -placement of'gi pavemeinp, -by terming-it as encroa.Ghment/;uhautho.rlzed- •iise,-."as iCGogni^ed under the said Act and their-conteitionIthat the Supreme :ourt. l|d recognized>he fact that tbe,$peciai; piavisions Act -is the only Central jaw having primacy g,ver.other%atutes, a:re:alsb mattersithat the oods-by. diem i on the ^il.P.(C) 5254/2011 Sl cpnaected matters •' Page: 27 of'28 •• i'. .], petitionc||i-s/vendqrs ought,to have placed,befori seeking iciarifications of-the status ,qgo order. , advisable for the petitioners/vendoi'Sw-as also, t ;apprba(;:i Supreme-Court' and rhake thei - • : I - • • • • ^ . - ,i-eg-ai-ds itheif. grievances. Howev(=o :as^|Doth parties insisted tinat tlieir ai gtimerjts-be tal<en note of and tijeir submissicns be placed ob record, some pajns h.ave.been'taken to do ^he'nee '' . • ' :he; Supreme-Court-while ' • i • • ' V; it would•therefore be ne ,resp,o.ndent/lilDMC to •subrniissians there •' as ->2: . ln||yieyv of the aforesaid •facts;anci; circuiTistdnces. tbis. Court! is ofthe opinion ihat it will.not be apipropriate .forjt to graii.t stay orders id the face of the s||atus quo, o:rG|er dated 15.07.,2Q11 pass,e(i' by the Suprenie'Court; .ti^tl-vesis.to-the orders of in::letter and spi.rit/• In-It is reil^praterf that any such, order shall be an."aF the-Supj;eme Court, w^hich-must be respected bbt such ci:ijpumstancesv the present petitions ar& .ciisposed-of by [declining gi ant of|!any interim orders to th.e petitioners':-. jHcwe'veiy-liberty is granted to both;Ifhe-parties to apply tothe Supreme Cour; status (jjuo order dated 15.07.2011. passed/in' 'tihe-case; of Gaihda Ram Isupra, 1he,parties are. leftto bea.r-th.feir own costs-.' - : for a. clarificatipn pf the OCJOhli 24fh, 2011 rkb . W.P.(C)'.<, 7A3/2011y S254/2(}11 &connected matters JUDGE