Dasu Ram Yadav v. Ndmc and Anr

judgment shall rlisijose. of tlie petil.ions tiled hy Ihe petitioners/vendoi~s as tlie issues I'aised in these will pelition:; aio comn'ion. For ttie sake ot convenience, facts of W.I'.(C) 4/-'L-!/.?!11 I aic Lal<en note of.

¶2Ttie focus of tl'ie lengttiy arguments addiessed hy both '-.ide': revolves di"Ound an order dated 15.U/./'Cl.t t passed hy t.he .^upicimn (.oiiil ori some miscellaneous applications I'lrespntei.l in W"lt".(C) / 19H/ entitled Gainda R.am Ol'S. vs. NUMC Ors,, wliicfi rnatter was do.cidr-'d on C)8.-L(.).201U by issuing exhousllve rliiections. • f'elore pio(.ceding lo deal witti-the respective aigurnents aildressed by tlie leni'iied counsel:; loi tlie |:,tetitioners/vendors and tl'ie I'espondent/NIJMIC, it wonlrl he appi^opriate to set out the aforesaid oidei" dated J 5.07.20 t I, whi( h i'. lhe bone of contention and is reinroduccd liereinhelow:- a:z.- "l-leard learned counsel for ttie applicants and pei used tlie l ecord. ' W.f'.Tc; 4743/7.01X, 5254/20J1 fk cannecfG'.! ."f tiff J'U' / Since •juclgmenl of Uiis Gouit has so far nol; hoen irnpleiTienleci, inasrnucii os, appropriale leqisial:ion lias nol: been enacted by the' competent legislati.ii'e, we, direct the parties to maintain the status quo as il. is obtaining today."

¶3It was the submissioii of ttie learned counsel for Ihe J i'espondent/NDMC that the aPoresaid order issued by the Su|.iienic (..oiirl, calling upon tl".ie parties to rnaiiitain status-quo as obtalninij on tb.07.20l:t, can only be iiiterpreted to mean that ttie extensive diiei l.ions issued earlier, on 08.10.2.010, in ttie case oP Galrida P^am (supra) leported as (2010) 10 .see 715 stiall coritinue. lo reniain ir) operalJon, incli nlii ig ttie adjudicatory rneclianism pi'ovided tor by tlie I\II3MC in" ttie .schemc. presented by it bePore ttie Supreme Coi.irt and apijroved in the .said judgment, l;il! the appi'opriate goveiairnent enacts a law loi" I'egulaliiig urban street hawkei's and sti'eet ventlors. it was state(.l tliat simply because the-le.gislature tias not enacted a law in this regard on oi helHie 3U.06.2011, as directed in ttie aforesaid judgnienl:, it r:anniil tic-^ contended by the petitionei's/vendors tliat there exists a vacuum aiu.l the said vacuum can no longer be Pilled U|,) by continuing to regnlale Ihe vending activities in the NDMC iurisdiction in the manner as set aforesaid judgment. ° ^ brief backgiound of tlie e.lispute; learned counsel foi Ihe respondent/NDMCwalked this Court throiiglisome prominent decisionsof I,he .-.>upieme Couit rendered fi'on'i time to time, wfiicfi relal.e lo riavemeni ^-^^3/201^, 5254/2011 & conn^cied ^ "r squatLers/liawkers,starting Trom tlie tiecision in l.l"ie case ol b.uclqn .'ji.nyli v.s,,..NDMC..&_._to'..reported as 2 SCC 727, Ll^e inl:eriniordei linted

03.03.2006 -passed by the .'3upi-en-ie Court in VW..P"(C) :ll.!U9'iii/.ll.'yr'B/ entitled .Sndhir Madan Ors. vs. MCD, the Pinal Judgment in Itie cn.se uT .Sudhir Madan (supra) reported as (2009) 17 SCC 597 and.lnslly, the judgmentdated 08.10.2010passed in the case ol\[.Lalndajlaii) (^LijjK,!,).

¶5Learned counsel Tor ttie respondent/MDMCvehemently oppo.stul l.lu! prayer oP the petitioners/vendorsTor grant of interim orders lesliaining ttie i-espondent/MDMCfrom removing theni from ttie sites oi,:cupied l)y them till the enactment of an appiopriale legislation, in teiins (U tin-directions issued by the Supreme Court in the. case of balndd llam (SLLPral-particularly-referred to the observations mai.le by the Supreme Court in paras 40' and '^.1 of IJie judgment in ttie c.r^se oi .Sudan. .Sing!.! .(s.up.ra.)., which dealt with ttie imrnediate evicUon of unniillloii/ed J squatters/tiawkersand laid ei-nptiasison tlie fact that iii tfie s..iid c.j'.c, llie ' Supreme Court'had directed removal of unauthorizedsquattcis/hnwkni-, I without awaiting final allotmentof sites to be allotted lo eligil;)leclaimnMl I • , : at the places recommended by tfie Thareja Corniriitteeor suggesleil by I the NDMC. ;

¶6Again, in ttie interim oixler dated

03.03.2000 passed in SuLlliir i I MadarPs case (supra), the following observation made by Hie .'.iipienle Court was higfili.glited by the counsel for the res|Jondenf/l\IDM(..^'• •' I'CJ 4743/2011, 525^1/2011 !h connert.ed nh-riiers Ffjye or.'/.fr V "While we undertake Lliis ex'krcise, we direct Ll'ie Authorities to see to it ttiat those persons, wtio aic carrying on hawking activities or who ore squal;l:ing on public land wittiout any autliority, everi in accdrdancc with the present day sclierne in force, are re.n'ioved fortl'iwiti"). Ttiis includes unauthoiized liawking, squatting on public sLi'eets, Tootpaths and public |:iaii<s, including playgi'oui')d. We direct the Delhi Atlrninistralion to take steps immediately in collaboi'ation with'ML.I) and MDMC with necessary assistance from Delhi i'oiice to clear the roads, streets, footpaths, I'jarks etc. I")y LI na utti 0 rized occu pa nts/sc] ua Ite rs/ fi aw l<ers." a

¶7• As to the judgrrrent dated 17.015.2007 rendered in the (.rise of Sudhir..Mac[cin._Lsj-il2raLmL>ch ernpficisis was laid by the counsel lor Hie respondent/NDMC on paras 28 to 30 and .35, which arc iepi odui.ei-l I'lereinbelow for ready referencfE::- "28. Tfie New Delhi Municipal Committee iias ai.so submitted its Scheme. We have considered Hie Scheme. submitted before lis. Ttie anea whiich falls undei Mf^MH. does not create problenis such as those in tlic area;, under MCD. However, in the said Scheme reference Ims beeii made to persons wfib do not fiave perinis.sion under Section 22.'3 or licence \.inder Section 330 of the NDMIC Act, 1994 but who are unauthorisedly coi il ii mil iq to carry on business as fiawk.ers/strectvendois. Ihey have been described as Uiose who are "LolerateLl"in the .NDMIC ai'ea. We fail to undersliand wliy any peisoit who violates the law sliould be tolerated. Eitlier ttiey should be coiripelledto obey tfie law or tlie law/ may be suitiibly amended, if it is found to create undue fiardsliip. lhe problems need to be addressed by the legislature or the ruleiTiakJng authority. We, therefore, observe Ihat if il is felt that ttie persons wlio fall in tins categcjry leciuiie special protection, tfie /Act may be suitably an-iemJeLl to cover their cases or else tfie number of such illeqal squatters n'lay increase fiorn time to time. W.P.fC) 4743/201.1, 5254/2011 Ih connBfXed inFiUj^.rs Pag(?. 0 "f .7Jt

¶29There has been no serioi.is oljjecLion l.o l.iii?. Srhonie SLibinittecJ by l\IDM(_ wliich is r3 cornpreliensive n;':! nc. Ceitain diiecLions hove, hovA/ever, been souglil; f(ir IVoni this CoLii t. We aijprovp IJir Srliprrip >^1 il in iil le.c! by . MDMC- • jO. .1.1 is SLibiTiil.ted before us Liiai: die Schemes which have, been approved by l.ltis Couii" miisl; be subjecl: b) any Act or l ules tliat iriay lie Pianied in consonance willi the National Policy on Uiban Street Vendois. II gno-s wittioLit saying that we ha\/e a|;j|;)roved the Schenies a:-; framed by MCij and NDMC. If tht-:; legislature intei venns anci' fi'ames another sctieu'ie or lequlcitioiis govenliin.j sucti Scliemes, that will cei'tainly suiDei'sede llic' Schemes prepared by MCID and NDMC. It is well settled tfiat any administi'ative action is always subject to law •that may be framed by tlie competei'it legislature.

¶35Subject to the aforesaid modifications/cllanges in the Schemes submitted .by MCD and NDMC, tlie sanie ai"e approved. The said audiorities shall now lakc^ appropi'iate steps to implement the Sctieme foi'thwilh. In case of any difficulty face;d by tfiern in im|".)len"ientii [.he scliemes, ttiey shall tiave llie liberty to appily to Court." 8-Lastly, in the recent judgmeiil in tlie case of Gaiticl_a Karji (supia), leairieil counsel foi' tfie i^espoiident/NI^MC specifically I'elied u|)un paia.'; 30, 32, 50 to 66 to state ttiat ttie Su|;ii"emc Court was const:ious of Ihn fact ttiat a structured regulation and legislation is urgently reciuiirul bi control and regulate tfie fundainenlal light of hawking. She also iminlpd out tliat tl'ie three tier disputes lediessal mechanism set out in Ihe affidavit filed by the/then Chaii persori t)f die NDMC was lal<en nole nf by ttie SupreiTie Court in para 72 of tlie aforesaid judgment and in paia il was then observed as below:- W.P,(CJ 47d<3/2011, 5254/20:11 J]i Conner:!eel Hers l"3i/e 2U "7J. In paragrapl"! 12 oP the'aPPiclavit it tias been stai.ed that there shall be an /Appellate /Authority whicli shall attend to the redressal of grievances of squatters, hawkers, traders, residents or any other |.5erson by hearing appeals against the decision of the Vendiiiq Committee

(Main). Pai'agraph 12 oP tPiat aPPidavit is sot out below 1here shall be an /Appellate /AutPioi ity. " On the Porwarding oP petitions received tiy the CPiairperson, this /\utliority shall attend lo redressal oP giievances oP squatteis, hawkers, traders, lesidents or any ottiei' person. riin. /Authority shall also t'lear appeals against Ilie decision oP \/ei"idir)g Coiriihittee

(Main). l3i:-.u:i.sions oP this /Authority unless challenged bePore a l ligtici Forum or in any Compelent Court, sliall be Pinal. Tliis Autliority sliall be initially Pleaded by a [.Terson appointed by tlie Chairperson having at least years legal or judicial background-There can lie more than one n'lember in tills /Auttioiity."

¶9/APter mal<ing the aPoresaid observjations, in paias 7'1 lo /(.i ol the judgment, the Supreme Coui't went on to observe as below.;- "74. In the said aPPidavit, wPiicPi was aPPirmed bePmo this Court on 24'"'' /August, 2010 it lias been stated that IMDMC si'iall comply witPi the orders wliich would be. passed by ttie adjudicatoi'y mechanism contern|)lrite(.l in tlie scheme and whicli Pias been approved Piy this Com! Poi' the NDIMC area, unless sucti orders ai'e made subjecl matter oP cliallenge bePoie a higpier Porum or in any other competent Court.

¶75In view oP such schiemes, tPie hav/vkeis, sqnatleis and vendors must abide by tPie Dispute lU-ulressal scheme mentioned above; There should not be any direct approach to this Court by way oP Presh petition n\ I/As, bypassing tPie i::)i5pute ('(edressal Mecliani,';m provided in the scl'ierne. W.P.(C) '^/43/2011, 5254/20X1 conneclf.d n\a,Ue.is Frnge. -ff 2S

¶76l-lowever, bi^foie 30 ' June,

201.1, l.he a|:)|..)roprialr: Govei'i'irnent is Lo enaci: a law on Lhe basis oT Ibe l'>ill mentioned above, oi" on thie basis oP any ai-nenrlnte;i tPiereoP so tiiat tlie hawkers i,nay precisely Ioidw Uip. . contoLirs oP their rig Pits."

¶10It was tPius sought to be contended on behalP of the; respondent/IMlJMC tPiat tPiei'e can be no vacuum as Par as legulrilion ol ti'ade oP street hawkers/veiidoi^s in the NPJMC ji.iiisLliction is concerneil anil the Pailure on tPie part oP the legislature to abide by tPie timeline .sol. ont by tPie Supreme Coui^t in tPie case oP Giainda l-larn (sjjpra), t)y |)ulling in place a statute on or bePore 30.06.20:11, cannot l:)e interpreted by Ihr-; petitioners/vendors to n'lean tPial they can continue their hridi; unhindered at any place oP their choice ii'i the l\n:)MC Jurisdiclion, in an unregulated manner and without any ob,struction or oP.iJection (lom IIn.'. NDMC. 11, Learned counsel Por the respondent/l\IDr>^Cparticulaiiy lePeiied b, paras 1'A and 7'5 oP tPie aPoresaid Judgment to state that the dispnle redressal scheme, noticed by the Supreme Court in para 7'.i was l.he om^ titat was legally Punctioning in NDIMC jurisdiction and which was lalcen note oP by the Court in the pieceding para 7-1. In other words,^ slu;-. slateil that tPie scheme as set out in tPie alTidavit dated 2^-1.0ri.20tO, Piled by the thei'i Chaii'iTerson oP NIDMC bePore the Supieme Court in G.:iiiida Kam's case ..(sLipi^a), was tPie one whicPi was Pinally approved by the .Snpiriiin^ Court. Stie Purther subiriitted Itiat assuming, witliout admitting, ihal the. W.P.(iZ) 4~43/20:l:l, S2S4/20 f'x co/frrecfed mRlSers; 9 nl' /H dispute reclressal scheme set out by tlie IMIjMC liacl lapsed on .'U'l.Ci.v() I I, ns claimed by tl'ie petitioiiers, Lheii the IMDMC Act j.irovides aii n(..le(n lai.e Pallback to ensLire orderly rnanaqempnt (jf vendors ii'i the aiea. .'i|)e(J[i(; reference was made in tliis regaixl lo tlie provisions coi'itained in .''icciions 221, 22^1, 225 and 226 of Ihe said Ac I. It was fui'tlie.r ai'giied by tfie counsel for thie iespondenl.:/IMI.)M(' Mint tlie application filed by the NDMC before ttie Sui.ireme Court in .Inly 20 11 IDraying inter alia foi' extension of tinie i;o I'egulate tiawlcei 5/si|uati ei in ttie NDMC area, as per the scheme mentioned in llie judgment in Gainda Ram-'s case (siipral, till thie enactment of a law by the legislature in lhat regard, tiad not yet been finally disposed of by the Suplen'ie L.ouit at the time of passing of the status quo oider dated 15.07.2rj;i.;l and similaily, the otl'ier application filed by one of the fiawkers,''vendors fUTiying inlci alia foi-restraining the respondent/l\lDMCfrom gi-anting ieiibaznii lighls to the winners of theduclcy di'aw of lots for allotmei'it, which was to hi^', field on

12.05-2011 • or any dal.e theieafter, was alsn pr:iiding consideration befoi'e the Supreme Court. l-lence, no linalily cc.mld In.', attached to the oi'der elated

15.7.201.L which can only be consideied an iriterirn measure till the final disposal of tlie afoi'esaid applicalioirs. ni ihc; enactment of a legislation.

¶13Oil merits, learned counsel fur the respondent/l\ll.")MC i"efen od to Ihn affidavit dated

01.08.2011 filed by the Ijirector (Enfoi cement). Ml iM( M/J'.fCJ 74-3/2011, 525^-1/20:11 a c.uiinc^cfed inalSers •• -i J wherein it was stated tl'iat piirsuant to tlie public nolJce issued l.)y tiit; MDMC inviting applications under ttie NDMC Urban SLie.et Vendiiii.i Scheme in th'e yeai' 2007, the respondent/NDMC I'lad received d.'IG/ applications. Tlie documerits reqiiired by the applicants for i'egisl.i"ati(.)n under tlie Scheine included a proot oP age, docurnei'itary prooiyafridavii Poi' the purpose oP annual income, [hoo'P oP residence, prooP ii") siipin.'il nP special categories lil<e liandicapped, Iv'astiniiri migrants etc. and prooP oP squatting in ttie NDMC area, iP any. In para 4 oP the aPoiesaiiJ allidnvil, tl'ie Pollowing criteria approved/ado|:ited by ttie Vending Cionimil Iroe In shortlist the eligible applicants is set uut;-"4. That the criteria approved/adopted by the Vending Committee to sliortlist the eligible applicants is as under:-

(1) TPie applicants sliould t)e resident oP t^elhi witli hi,-^ name registered in electui"al I'olls as pei' aPjstract nj-photo E-Pxoll or El'{0-certiPicate. ' ,

(ii) TPie applicant should be a n'lajoi', viz. with ovei' li'> years oP age as per valid birtPi certiPicate or age certiPicate or scliool certiPicate etc.

(iii) Tl'ie apiplicant sPiotild. be a needy as |::)er ii'' records oP i.")C (F(evenue) oi' as vulnerability record-S ol Govei'nment oP MCT oP Delhi (Samaiil< Suvidha .Saiigam: vulnerable ai'id most vulnerable category).

(iv) The api'jlicant shoujd be registered as per' MI'Mt.' Street VeniJors Scheme. 1'Pie policy veiiPication oP the applicant should be available.

(v) The applicant or liis dependent Pamily menibei should not be employed or stiould not liave any othoi tehbazari/vending or any othei' bi.isiness pieiuises in PJelhi as per record veriHcation oP NDMC/MCD. W.F.(C) 4743/2031, 5254/201.1 a wnne.cl.ed ni.-?H(=~is • Page. .IX i'i y. ff (\/i) Preference will he given Lo appHcante vmIw are physically iianclicap|"jecl or wilIows oi' senioi' citizoM'"-^ above GO years • oi' Kashmiri migranls or' SC/.'r. I (necessary ceiuricate to be SLibrnittecl and relaxation may be givei'i in ttie above critei ia)." , 1A-. As per tlie responclent/NDMC, thie category-wise list ril eligil)lo si'iortlistecl applicants in terms oP the atoresaicl criteria totalled in applicants. The aPfidavit dated rj;l..08.20.tJ. states thai. the I i respondent/MDMC tias identiPied 183 new spaces, ii'i at.ldition to lhe .<'()i ! ! remaining spaces identified by ttie Ttiareja Committee in the Nl.iMt.. aioa, I wl'iich wei'e available' Por allotment, tPiLis tailing tl"ie total ni.iml.ioi ol i • • ' available spaces to 386. K was Puiltier stated tliat due to Pactois lil'.e do listing oP the Parliament Street on security gi'ounds, conslj m Ii( m nl ; Plyovers and'Meti^o.Stations at vai ious locations in the I\II3NC jurisdiction, i the nuniber oP authorized tehbazeri sguatters tias changed Prom .Plft in i 404 in nuiTiber. TPie nun-ibei" oP applicants, who tPie res|")ondenl/l\IMM(. : claims, are vending unautPiorisedly at ConnaugPit Place, Saiojini Magai', ; Pailiainent Street and Jaripatli areas and in wPiose favour, .s7D/;/.s i/f/o oi'ders are operating, is stated to t)e'323 in numbei'. M"ie alPidavit a:^serls that siiTiply because the nanies oP the petitioi'iei's, who are legisteiOLl wilh I i ttie MDMC, Pigure in ttie eligibility list di'awn by the res|.iontlcnl/MI'M(', i cannot be ti'eated as prooP oP theii" regularly vei.iding in the l\lt)M(.' aiea / and nor does it couPer on Ihem any enPorceable vesteil l iglit lo en.suri-> a vending space for ttieni in tlie NP)MC; area, whicli is directly dependt-nl nn V\f.P.(C) 4743/'J.OJ. :i., 5254/2011 <" conned pa( in^l.li^rs ' Pni/e .12 uj'" Ll'ie number of spaces avFiilable. ri"ius, il: was conLeiuled l.hal: ne.ilher liiC! possession oP any numbei' of challans, nor thie absence Uiereof can mnlu! a clirrerence, For l:l"ie reason Lhal challnns cannol: Tonn l.lie basis for IIm:!' pel'.iliioners l:o claim any vested legal right to squat at a given sijace.

¶15Counsel Por the respondenl;/NDi'>'IC asserted that the ine.sent petitions are not maintainable inasmucPi as the |)etitiuiK-!is have an equally ePPicacious alternate I'emedy oP ap|jroaching Uie authority constituted by the CPiairperson, MDMC, Por redressal nl qiievances and Pailure on ttieir part lo tiave approached the Vending Committee is not on accoun-toP the Pact that the said Conimittee ini.lu.Jing the appellateauttiorityis not Functioning,but because they have lound il more convenient to bypass the aPoresaid lorum and approach this (..ouit. directly,- which is not permissible. She stated that extensive m(^a.suie.s tiave been taken by the respondent/MDMCto constitute tPie adjinliinl oi y meclianisrn by. way oF a three tier system in tlie Following manner; - 1, Vending Sub-Comniittee (Site oF Spaces),

¶2Vending Sub-Committee (lleatPi and Hygiene) and :3. Vending Sub-Committee (EnPoi cement). 15-SPie stated that the cieation oF the aPoresaid three VentJing .Sub-Committees, Vending Committee (Main), as also oP tlie ap|::)ellateaiilhoi ily wh-icPi was constituted to i'edre.ss tPie grievances oF U't; .squall er;;, l"iawl';ers, traders, residents or any other person against the dei.i.sion ol nrillnl.e I'^ii W.P^C) 4>';>yi3/2011, S.7S4/20.tX 3 cciineiCed iuiti!:Pi 5 Pijge. 13 of 251 I the Vending Committee(Main), was placed bePore tlie Supieme L.onil. loi consideration and the said three tier adjudicatory inecl-ianisiii wn? ili.ily appi'ovecl in the judgment of Galnda Ram (supra].

¶17Per contra, leai^ned counsels Poi' tl'ie petitioneis/vemJois, who appeared on diPPerent dates, vehemently opposed the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent/NDMCand assei ted tPiat the sclieme Ploaled by the respondent/NDMC Por legulating vending activitie.s in ils juri.';(Ji(iion had lapsecl on 30..06.2011 In the absence oP the enactment oP a legislation as per directions oP the Suprenne Couil" in the case oP GM!lda.Jit3r.!!..(^^UI=^t'i!l and as on date, there is no'scPien'ie in existence. It was cariva.ssed ilial the imiplication oP the aPoresaid order oP stains quo passed by the Supreme Court on 15.07,2011 can only,.mean that irrespective oP the lact whether the squatting is legal or illegal, tPie sanie be peiniitled to continue on an 'as is wtiere is' basis, and-such sCbLiis quD is to be maintained by all the parties till a law is Piaiiied by the legislature.

¶18Mr. B.B. Sawliney, Sr. Advocate apineaiing Poi' Ihe petitionei's/vendors submiitted ttiat in tlie case oP Gainda r-\grii (supici). Supreme Court had directed tPiat tlie appropriate government niirsl. enncl ,a law on or bePore

30.OG.2011 so tPiat Ihe tiawkers may fjiecisely l<,now the contours oP thieir rights, lience the dispute redressal mef:hani,sin provided Por in the scPierne mentioned in tPie aPoresaicI judgmonl cioiild operate only upto

30.06-201J. and thereaPter, 'the said scheme would W.P.(C}4743/2015254/201X .Ti conueded /iia/Sefs Page .1'! tfT auLornaLicallystand lapsed. He stated that no other interprctatioii orin I.k-! given to tiie order dated 15.07.Z0J. i, directing maintenance oP in view of ttie qualirying words, "as il is obtaining today". He aignod Mial it the scl'ieme was continning t.o i.)perale, as claimed by Itie loai nod counsel Tor ttie respondei)t/NDMC, tlien ttiere was no good reason loi the respondent/NDMC to have retrained ti-orn holding a di'aw ot lols, whiiJi was slated tor the same day, i.e., J I;'.07.20J..L, and tliat Pact oP the mallei is that even the respondent/NDMC Piad understood ttie sial.i.is quo nidor to mean that there is no sctierne in place aPter 30.6.20.1.1, Por the i"oason ttiat in para 60 oP the aPoresaid juLlqinerit in the case oP Gajnda, Kaiii (sugral, ail ttie writ petitions and the interim applications Piled bePoio the . Supreme Court were disinosed oP with clear and speciPic directions lhat tlu-:: problem oP hawi<ing and street vending could be regulated by llio schemes Pramed by the MiDMC ahd MCD only upto

30.06.20.1:1 and iml thereaPter. It was asserted on betialP oP ttie petitioners/vei idoi s IPial a,'.- on date, ttie directions oP the .SLipreirie Court tPiat st:^il:i.is (]un is lo he niaintained by the parties can only be given one intei pi etalJon, whii h is tl'iat till a law is ultimately enacted by tlie l^^ai'liament, iri"G.spective nP lln'.ii legal status, all ttie petitioners/vendors would be pei'rnitted lo u sguatting/lTawk'ing at ttie sites thai: have been occupied t'y l.lieni. •I.y. InsoPar as the composition oP the (Jispute redressal me(:haniMn i:. conc.eined, leai necl Senior Advocate Pen" ttie fietitioners siibiiiilleil lhal contrary to the understanding nP the respondent/NDI^IC, Uie siJinniR 4/43/2011, b254/20Xl conneclsd rnpU.e/s Ff/i/e ./.'p tff 7H • reproduced al; paras 72 and 73 in Lhe judqmeni; in (.lie case uT Giaiijda llpin .(supra), was noL' tiie one wliicli was acl.uaily recoqnized by Llie Sii|.ii fMnr-! Court, and rather it is the dispute redressai scheri'ie mentiuned in rinrn

7.j oF the aforesaid judgment i.e., 'a sc|-ienie for url;jan street ven(.loi.s lor,.' IMDI'^IC area as formulated in tfie year .2006, whicli was ull imnte.ly • approved Ijy the Supreme Court .on 17.05.2007, in [he ca.se of .Sudliii M.acl.an (supra), which is tlie sciteme wtiicii finds mention si'jecifif ally ii"i tl'ie following para 74 and is ttie one '"ipproved by tiie Siui.'ueiile C'ouil. II was contended that even otherwise, ttie l'\lational Capital Territory of L.ielhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 (hereinafter I'eferred to as 'S||.7'eii":ii;iiil [Prtn/'isiioos Aclt^) comes to the rescue of the petitioners for the reason tl'iat sub-clause

(2) of Section 3 of llie Special l-^rovisions /Act niamlal.o.s maintenance of staL-us quo as on

01.01.2006, notwithstandintj. any judgment,• decree or ordei' of any coui't, in respect of encroachnicinl oi unautlioiized development. Tlius, it was subinitted on hehalP nf lhe I petitioners/vendors that ttiey were entitled to grant of inteiir)i prolcclion tI till tlie enactment of a legislationto regulate hawl<;ing/vendin()acl.ivilie;,in I urban streets in IDeliii on the basis of tlic IMational Policy on Ui-|.)an Sl.i r-K-:! II Vendors, 2009 framed on 17.06.2009and the Special i'rovisionsAct. ! I, I 20. With reference to the Special Provisions Act, learned Senini ! _ - • I Advocate Tor the petitioners stated tiiat tile plirase, "unaiiti...ri,.(,d development"used in l:he defiriition clause lias to tie seen In II,e : contextas the one in which the phiase "encioacl,merit"I,as heeii delino, S25^/mi, «, co"™rte., ,,,, I v/vheiein it is mentioned that putting u].") of temporary, serni-temporaiy oi peimanent stiuctuie for I'esidential use or conuTiercial use or any otlini use, and the placement of cioods oi"i the pavements by ttie ijetltiuncis i.s liable to be tenned as unauthoiized use Tor maintainingstatus I'luo uudei the Special Provisions Act. i^luch emphasis was laid on the averments , made by the respondent/MDMC in its inleiim application filed bcliMc Ihe Supreme Court in GclIncLaJlajj/s.cosin July 20:1.1, to submit Ihal the respondent/NDMC itself had stated in the said application that Ihe sclieme had lapsed and ttierefore, ttie only interpretation that can be given to the status quo order passed by the Su|.")reme (':oui[. on Ij.O/.20.11 can be that no scheme would exist after

30.0i).2(.)l I anil ttius, the benefit of the Special F'rovisionsAct ought to be extended b; the petitioners. He submitted that the; phrase 'street vendors' has l)een clediiy defined under tlie National Policy on Urban Street VeiKJurs, 2()i)',). Reliance was placed in the case of Pjitii,VyaparMandal Pell'ii (((cgd.) vs, NCP.Jown Hall Ors. reported as (zraop) ,12 SCC -475 ami 11 ir piovisions of the Special Provisions /Act to submit ttiat even (.he .riupieme. Coui t had lecognized the fact that tlie Special ProvisionsAcl; is th(> only Central law governing the field and it would have priniacy ovoi olhei' Statutes and administiativeorders. It is thus stated that the jMr.vi.si,,i)s .of the MDMC Act cannot be invoked by the respondent/NDMCas the '.aid Act is not in consonancewith Article 96 of the Constitutionof .India and fuitheimoie, the Special Provisions Act being' valid till the end ol' Deceinbei 2011, no ordei's in clerogal.ioi'iof thie provisions of l.iie Sriid /\i:l. can be passed. • O.K. IripaLtii, Advocate appearing Tor some of (l.lie petitioners/vendors sougiit to embellish the submissions oP-Mr.MriwIinn.y, Sr.Advocate and relied on ttie orders passed in W,.P,.(Cj i4-'1!9/3((.ii.ll.i entitled iY|ohc!^_lsmajJ vs^ N£'Jyil4__&._.,Qjls^ to ni'ge tliat the.: "Appnllal.e Authoiity constituted under the dispute I'edressal mechanism (di tiie NUMC area, Ivas not been functioning, whicli fact he stated is hornr; oul iToin a perusal of the order dated 08.03.201.1 passed in tl'ie nfoir^said' case, wl'ierein the Court took notice oT tlie claim of tl'ie.petitioner/vem loi theiein to the effect ttiat inspite of orders passed by tlie Appellale Authority allovv/ing squatting at a particulai" site, till a final deterniinni ion by the Vending Committee as to his eligibility, the lesrjondent/MDMt: and i Ij the police were disturbii'ig tiis activities. In the aforesaid oiclni, the I • s(:atement of the counsel foi-tlie resiDondent/NDMC was recorded In Ihe effect that the appellateautfiority,whose order was being relied upon [ly , the petitioner therein, was constituted initiallyfor the MCD aieas and lalci , started functioning for the NDMC areas as well for the reason that at that ji time, there was no separate-appellateauthority for the NDMC areas, hut iI subsequently,in accordancewith the scheme approved by the :;upreme Court, the Chairperson,.NDMC had constituted a separate appr-llale authority for-the'MDMC areas. "11 lei efore, the ' appellate aulhority I appointedearlier had ceased to have jLirisdictionqua the NDMC areas. II was Lhus contended on behalP oT the petitioners/vendors l.lial llio aforesaid order clearly indicates tl'iat the appellate authority in the NI'jMe: areas is not functioning.

¶22Reliance was also placed on the minutes of the i")ieetiny of the Vending Committee dated 11.03.20.10, to clalni that if tfie fai.-t of whethei there wa.s actual squattii'iq/vendiny was verified by ttie C.oniniittee and if the names of the petitionei's/vendors figured in the eligibility list |)iepai od by tlie respondent/NDMC for tiolding tlie draw of lots, then it did nnl lie in tlie mouth of the respondent/NDMC l.o clain'i.that the petil:ioners, wlm had been vei'ified' and found to be eligible, were not entitled to .';(|uat at various sites in the IMDMC area after .30.06.-^_0 I t.

¶23In rebuttal, counsel for tiie re5|:iondeni./NlJMC elis|.iuh''.d tlie contentions of tlie petitioners/vGndors and while reiterating her carlicir' submissions, asserted ttiat the petitioners did not have any lr;gally enforceable rigfit, created on the basis of the eligibility li.st (.Irawn by NDMC, for claiming, grant of interim orders in ttieir favoui\ She again referred to paras 68, 69, 75, 76 and 78 of the judgment in tlie i.a.'-.r: i.)f Gaiiidg P.atn (supra), to ernpliasize tfiat when l;he aforesaid paia.s me read collectively, it is clear ttiat the petitioners cannot claim an entitlement to any interim ordei's as souglit by tliein in l.lie |)ie5.enl. proceedings. .Sfie furttier stated that even ottierwise, Ifie .' .pecial Provisions Act relied upon by the petitionei"s has duly lecogni/ed the 4743/201J, 5254-/2V1J. camieciei/ in^i(j<=rs S trl'2(1 schemes prepared by the local auLhoiiL-iesin the National Capita! Icirilory oP Delhi for regulation oP urban street venrlors. To substantiate 11.e subrhission,she drew the attention oP Lhis Court to the preanible nP ihe aPoresaid /Act, which mentions the Pact that all the schemes prepnied by tl-ie local authorities in the National Capital Territory uP Ijelhi, Poi lecjulatlon oP uiban street vendois in accordancewith the National I'ulii.y on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 and the Master Plan Por Dellii 2U.'\, have been implemented and Puitlier that iriore time is rec|uired Por prui'ei iniplen'ientation oP the schemes regaiding liawl'.ers and urban slieol vendors.

¶24A speciPic rePerence was made by the learned counsel Pnr llie respondent/NDMC to Section 2(1 )(c) oP the Sr^ecial Provisions /Act, whii.h defines the phrase "encroaclnment" to claim that it does nol: cov(.m the petrtionei"s herein, who are squatters. Furttier rePerence vA/as niade i.o Ihn provision oP Section 3 oP the Special Provisions /-\cl, which i:oulains a obstante clause, to state hhsb status quo with reganJ to tPie encroacl or unauttiorized developn-ient as on 01.U;t.2005, mentlonei.l in llir-: :.aid provision, was in. the context oP l:Pie dePinition oP tlio phiasi.^s "encroachment" and "unalitliorized developrrieiit" set out in the doPinili clause at Sections 2(:L)(c) and 2(J.)(i) respectively oP Itie .'.'pecinl Provi,sions /Act and ttius, the petitioners/vendors did not quallPy undi:i thr! aPoresaicI enactment Poi" claiiriiny piotection as iioiie oP tiie iuqredieni;. sol out in tl'ie provisions oP the aPoi'esaid enactment are Poiirid to exist in theii' ^i/4-3/201J, 525^!/201.1 JJi ccTniTecfei/ S-'ulsg 2(t irr /II case. 11: was submi I: I:eel Lhat l:he Special PiovisionsAct:, which cr efPect in the year 2007 and has been extended Pron'i tin'ie lo Linur! nnd lastly, .(.ill Decembei 20.LJ., does not give permissionto persons lo lo Minrt any activity once they I'lave beeri rernovecl by tl'ie civic nulli(.)rity and similaily, thie Sclieme of 2009 does not entitle the registrants to s'(|nal. unless they have been allotted'a speciPic site. .In support ()P tPie aloicsaid subn-iission, reliance was place on the judgment in tlie case oP MUU vs. GuiTiarn Kaur reported as

(1909) .1 SCC

¶101For the |)ur|.io:;e oP interpreting the meaning oP the pPirase, "structure", rePereni;.e was mndn to the judgment oP the Supreme Coui't In the case oP MunicipDl Corpoi'aliion oP Greater Bombay Ors. vs. Indian Oil Coj:poratiu11 Ltd. reported as AIIR 1991 SC 60C. l-or tPie purpose oP uiulerstandini.j llu! expression, 'status quo', rePerence was made to tlie judgi'uenl in the ( ase oP Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. State oP Bihar Bi. Qis, rei.u.u Iei I as

19.t?7 (Supp) SCC 394-to submit tl'ia^t in'orclinai y legal comH.itation, tlie term "status quo' implies the existing state oP tPiings at any given time.

2.5. As Por the National Policy on Urban .Street Vei'idor's, counsel lni the Ies'porsdent/NDMC stated that both, tlie 200'-l policy and tlie 2(.)l)'.) j.-'oilcy, PInd mention in the decision oP the Supreme Court in ttie case oP Gaiiida Ram (supra) and it was only aPter talcing into corrslLleration the sTiid t-iollcies, did the Court dii'ected the institutionali/!al.lon oP iiibaii .'-.11 >'.ni ve.nding through legislation. It was Purther stated that at the lime ciP W.P'.fCJ 4.743/2011, 5254/20.1.1 ff, connecl.ejl nis,I.iers Faye 2.1. «f 2>.i cltliv/e.iingthe juclgmenl:dated 8.10.2010, the Supreme L.ourt tool< nulke or the MCf or Delhi Lav/vs (Special Provisions)Act, 2009, which was valid upto 30.12.2010, apart from noticing the Model Street Vendois (Protection of Livelihood and F^xegulation ot Street Vending) Bill, 700'.-) introduced by the Government of .India, Ministry of Mousing r. Uituan Poverty Alleviation.She stated that nottiing new is now being suliinilled by tlie petitioners/vendors tierein, Por tl)e present petition:; I.d be entertained for any purpose-whatsoever and all the grievances raised t.iy ttie petitioners can easily' be • addi'essed bePoi'e tlie Ve.nding Committee/appellate authority under l.he scheme relating to i.nijnn sheet vending in the MDMC ai'ea, which Fora continue to remain tunctional, even aPter 30.6.2011.

¶26Tliis Court has tieard ttiese matters at lengtli since .17.'i,20l I, on different dates. -Various counsels Por the petitioners/vendois ami Ihe Standirig Counsel for tlie resporident/M[)MC tiad addressed l.he i :oni!.. Their i"espective arguments have been taken note of. I.?)0tlr sidn.s have made sti'enuous efforts to explain what tfie status quo ordfM dated

15.7.2011 passed by tlie Supi'eme Court in the case of GaiLida Ram (supra) implies. The leitmoUf el' tfie arguments addi'essed on belialf of the petitioners/vendors is that the status quo order read wilh ttie. qualifying .words, "as it is obtainin.g today", suffixed to tlie order, can only be read to imply that as on date, i.e., 15.7.2011, ttiere was no sihenio operational in the MDMC areas to regulate vending activities and till a law W.P.(C) 47^13/20X1, 5254/2011 ffi cvniif^cte.a' insl(.i3rs 22 <.rf JSf • is Lillimatelyenacted by the legislature,,all the petitioners,irrespectiveof their legal status, can continue squatting/hawkingat differentsites that have been occupied by them. It is also assertedthat in the teeth of the status quo orders passed by the SupremeCourt, the respondent/NDMCin collusion with the police authorities,is threateningto illegallyremove the petitioners/vendorsfrom different sites, which is detrimental, adverse', harassing and belligerentto those, who have been found eligible by the lespondent/NDMCfor being allotted specific tehbazahspaces within the NDMC jurisdiction,but are being threateneddue to lack of further action in this regard which is pending at the end of the respondent/NDMC. The second limb of submissions,made by the learned counsels for the petitioners/vendorswas that the Special ProvisionsAct would additionally come to the rescue of the petitioners/vendors,which also requires maintenance of status quo as existing on 01.10.2005, till the end of December, 2011.

¶27On the other hand, the main thrust of the argumentsaddressedby the counsel-for the respondent/NDMCwas that as the legislature has failed to enact an appropriatelegislation in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gamda Ramfsuora).the subsequentorder dated 15.7.2011 dil-ecting parties to maintain the status quo as it is obtaining on the said date can only imply that the state of affairs as existing on date are not to be-disturbed,until the rights of the partiescan be finally determined"through legislation. It was submitted that while •W.p.(C)4743/2015254/2011&connectedmatters p^ge 23 of28 passing the status quo order on ;l.5.07.Z0.Ll, the Supreme Com I. wris conscious or tlie Tact that tlie l"'riiiiameni: had yet tLi enncl n Loinpreliensive legislation to regulate url.ian street vending anc.l in such circumst.ances, it goes without saying tliat it was tlie intent of Ihe Court that the entire dispute redressal mechanisiri as recognized in Ihe i:ase of Cdipda KcLn'iCs_upr;^)_ would continue tc.) I'eii'iain in cTi'ieration, .so a;? Id regulate the urban street vendin'g in.the IMDMC area, till the leyislalionin tliat regard is enacted. F-u.rther, it was str'essed that the .'•.pe(.ial Provisions Act did not pi'ovide any protective umbrella tp tlie i.ietitioiii'.rs, whose squatting activities neittier Pell under llie detinilion nl' encroaci)rnent", nor under "Linautllorized develoi.vrnent". Jt was fuillK^.i" asserted tliat even otiierwise pending an appropriate legislation, the NIJMC Act wa.s available as a Pall back option and tlie relevanl: provisinns in the said enactment would contiiiue to regulate street veridinci aclivil.y in the MIDMC area and ttie petitioners/vendors could not r.iairn a vestcnl ii(.|ht to squat at any site oT their own. 2b. Fron'i the above, it is apparent that arguments and diguments have been raised by botti sides on their respective versions of I the meaning and the ePIect oP tlie status quo order datei.l t.'r./..'(I1.1 t - i passed by the Supreme"Court. It is also very a|:,parent,that the meaning song!it to be attributed by botti sides as to the implication oP the ;;aid : status quo order, is diametricallyopposed l.o each otiier. Not only l.his, both sideo ai e at a tangeiiton the Pacti.im oP the pendency or i,i| herwi.sr; oP , 52S^/:Wll « connerfe,/ Lhe interim applications Hied ijetore the Supreme. Court i.)y l.)olh, llie. applicants/vendors and the respondpnt/IMDMC, For ciariricaLionr.;, un whir.li the aforesaid order came to - l.je passed as. it is tlie stand (.W Ihe respondent/NDi^'IC tliat the aPoresaid applications were not disi'iosf^.d of while passing the ordei' dated 15.7.2011. The parties are poles apait on the question ot import of the status quo order, and ttie etrei.t of I.he observations made by the Supreme Court in tiie case of Cainda Pxamfsupra) as regard's the approval oP NI.DI'^C selleme. Tliey are alsi.i at loggeiheads on the coiYiposition oP the adjudicatory mechanism in ihe • NDMC JLirisdiction and the maniier oP its Punctioning, as also tlie itiontily oP tlie schen-ie wtiicti is validly operating in the NDMC areas Por regulating urban street vending, wliich had all been subject matter oP considei ation bePore the Supreme. Court in the aPoresaid case. "i'he other .i.';'-;ne.s \ agitated by the parties-, starting Prom the interpretation oP the vai-ious observations made by the Supreme Court in the aPoi'esaid judgmeni, ..ho the Pormulation oP ttie scheme as approvecl by tl'ie Supi enie CouiM in the case oP Sudliir Madan (supi'a), to the composition oP the di.'.-ipul.c^s redressal rnectianism and its validity as also ttie irteaniitg cip the 'J.alus quo order, are all iii a tLii'rnoil as both tlie parties have stoutly (..lePo'^nded theii lespective stands whicli ,ai"e coi'upletely at vaiiance wil.h oiai.h iilhrM. The only .common ground shared by the parties is the Pactum oP pn';;.ing Of the recent judgment dated 0B,10.201(.) in ttie case of Cainda .Ram(sL!pra)and the subsequent status quo order daled .lb".7.20.1.1 pa;-;:-;e.(I m.P.(C) 4743/2011^ 5254/7.011 a airnteaed nisUers 25 of by Llie bi.i|;)rerne Loiirt.

¶29The rounl;r3inhGacl oP Lhe. dispute in the preyeni: crises IIickiIoii-; leinains tlie stcil.us quo oixler dcilcd 20,1.1 finssecl l.iy i.lic .'.iiiprciiir: CourL Tiie issue which is sougliL In hje nqiLalied bprure Uiis CVimiiI i<. liinl having regard to tlie status guo orcler, w/hietiier a stay oi"(jer ouliIiI I.ii he granted Ijy tliis Lourt in iovour cit tl'ie petiUnners/veiidors as proynd Imi Ijy tlieiTi, irrespective-oT ttieir legal status, llius rfuhidiJiiKj Mm respondent/NIJMC fron"! threatening ai"id/or rernriving Uiem riiuii die diPterent sites occupied by thein in the MDMC areas. In ul.her vvdid.-;, Ihis' Court is being called upon to examine hie nieaning, sc(j|;)e and elfcil oF the status quo oixler dated

15.07.20.1;. On the gueslion ot Im.'W Id Dscertciin ttie implication ol a status qu order passed by a couil, in lhe case of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal .Liniit('J rsi..ij2ra1. ilwas e)bsei-ve(.l by llir; Supreme Court ttiat tlie expression, 'staius c.|uo' is uiidoutitedly a hMiii nl" anil.iiguity and at times, gives iise Ut iloM!.>t and difricuity ain.l in rase any parly has any doubt on -lhe lyeaning and the efte.ct ot the slalu;, quo 01 del, the pro|ier coui'se for such a pari\' would l.ie lo approach llu^ ('oiiil that had passed ttie status c|uu oriler, ti.i •'•oelf,,.clariric:ations. case at tiancl, wliile seel'.lncj •rj i-jde the wave oP IIip alnii:.',aid status quo order, the parties have i ho .eii [n oveilnok (nie impDilanl Pactoi,. whicl'i is that a status quo en der operat.es on t)olh siilos. Ilu.' •Supreme Court has passed r,rdeis lequirinq both sides to iiiainlain slalir, •W.P.(CJ 4743/2011, S25''!/2011 !!, conn^.c!ed 2u itf )!lj' c.|i.io. Unce such an order of l:he SiipreiTie Courl: is on recorri, ll)o snnie nol only binds all the parlies Lo Llie adjudication, and all the pai lies, (..ivil 01 judicial who are required to act in accordance with tlie said ordei-;, luit it equally binds the High Court from interferii'ig witti sucli an ordei , as Ihc; said order has been passed in litigations before the highest C:.)!.!!1 tW ihe Ia n d. Jl. Ihe orders of the-Supreme Court'are on record. The slaliis (|U() 01 del is a cleai signal to the MiglT Court as well, to avoicJ Liianlincj any order, including an interim order, when the Supreme Couit has diinclcd. for status quo to be maintained. Jn such cii cumstances,if this Cuiiit was to grant a stay order in favour of the petitioners/vendorsarrayed hefuie It, iL would be tantamountl.o negating the orders of tlie Siipiemri Coui t, which require the parties to maintain status quo pending ena..tmoiitof appropriate legislation. If either of the parties were undeai ahoiii (he interpretationof the status quo order, it was for ttiem to have a,.,plied h, the Snpneme Court for clarifications thereof. Additionally, the reliance placed by the petitioners/vendorson the Special ProvisionsAct seeking interim legal sanctity to Ihe placement of goods by ll.cn, nn Ihe pavements, by terming it as. encroachment/unauthori/eduse, r.s recognized under the said Act an.J their contention that the Sup,erne Court had recognizedthe fact that the Special ProvisionsAct is the: only Central law having primacyover etherStatutes,are also mailerslhal the — petitioners/vendorsought to h.ivo t'loced before tt,e Supreme Con,I while seeking clnrincatior.sof the status qeo order. It would therein,e he advisable tor the petltloners/venrlorsas also die iespondent/IMI.M,; m approach the Supreme Coort and mal<e ttieir submisslnns iImmo as regards tt.eir grievances. However, as both parties InsisLerl IhnI Ihel, ai-guments be taker, note of ar,d their submissiorrsbe placed on re..n,d, some pains have been taken Lo do l.he needful. In view of tt.e aforesaidfacts and eireumstances,this t:r,u,l Is "t ihe opinion that it will not be appropriatefor It Lo grant stay orde,s ho, e of the status quo oixler doi.ed :l 5.07.2011 passed by tfie Knprenn- (nu,l. It is reiteratedthat any such ordershall be an aiU-Khesisto Ihe oideis "f • Sdpi-emeCourt, which must be respectedboth, Ip lettei-a.,d h suet, circumstances,ttie p,-esent petttlons a.e disposed of hy. de, lining to tile petltloiiers. Huwevei", llheiiy l.s ijiauleil to both the parties to apply to the Sup,erne C;ourt for a.clai-lficalionof the status guo order dated .tS.Q7.,,0;,t Passed In the case of Gaiiida Ko.u (sypra). Tlie partiesare left to t.ear their owr, costs. 0CT0L:I{5. ri< b , 2 Oil W.P.fCJ^7:-13/20X1,52.5'!/:. 25^!/2UJ1 .% (HIIMIA IKOmill.II connerxed mplf-ers I'fjyr-; 2(-r uf /:i

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ^^ Reserved on : 21.09.7nii Pronounced on: 24.1Q.?ni 1 54Q2/2011, 54g3Z2013L 5405/2011. 5408/2011 i^llT/TrnT' M»/2oii: 54i3),nii 5473/2011,—5484/2011^5485/2011. S497/2011 e;4QR/7011 Si 5503/2011^ 5504/201l! 5505/2011 550fi/:?ni/ !f°! 5630/2011. 5631/2011. 564-^/7nii, 5656/2011. 5711/2011. 5717/203 1. 5718/2011, 5728/2011. 5729/2011. 5731/2011. 5732/2011. 5737/2011, 5738/2011. 5739/2011. 5743/2011. 5761/2Q11. 5784/2011, 5785/2011. 5791/2011. 5794/2011, 5797/2011. 5798/2011, 5822/2011. 5911/2011. 5918/2011. 5928/2011. 5931/2011, 5933/2011. 5934/2011. 5935/2011. 5957/2011. 5965/2011, 5966/2011. 5967/2011. 5968/2011. 5969/2011. 5970/2011, 5974/2011. 6096/2011. 6100/2011. 6101/2011. 6102/2011, 6107/2011, 6108/211. 6114/2011. S115/2011. 6116/2011, 6117/2011. 6118/2011. 6119/2011. 6120/2011. 6121/2011, 6122/2011. 6123/2011. 6144/2011. 6250/2011. 6270/2011, 6271/2011. 6449/2011. 6527/2011. 6528/2011. 6529/2011, 6530/2011. 6531/2011. 6532/2011. 6533/2011. 6534/2011, 6538/2011, 6555/2011, 6667/2011. 6668/2011. 6669/2011, 6670/2011, 6684/2011. 6701/2011. 5173/2011. 4739/2011, 5046/2011, 5051/2011, 5157/2011. 4649/2011. 4722/2011, 2601/2011, 2602/2011. 3052/2011. 3181/2011. 3185/2011, 3189/2011, 3196/2011. 4340/2011. 4342/2011. 4343/2011. 4344/2011. 4345/2011. 4349/2011. 4350/2011. 4352/2011. 4354/2011. 4356/2011, 4358/2011, 4359/2011. 4360/2011, 4361/2011, 4362/2011. 4363/2011. 4364/2011. 4365/2011, 4366/2011, 4367/2011, 4368/2011. 4369/2011. 4370/2011. 4371/2011. 4372/2011. 4373/2011. 4374/2011. 4375/2011, 4377/2011^ 4387/2011, 4388/2011. 4389/2011. 4391/2011, 4392/2011, 4393/2011, 4395/2011. 4396/2011. •4398/2011, 4398/2011. 4399/2011. 4400/2011. 4402/2011. 4404/2011, 4405/2011. 4406/2011, 4407/2011, 4408/2011. 4409/2011. 4410/2011, 4412/2011. 4413/2011. 4414/2011. 4847/2011, 4859/2011, 4887/2011. 4990/2011. W.P.(C) 4347/2011 and connected matters 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. IN THE MATTERS OF mm ALAM Petitionerin W.P.(C)4347/2011 KIRPAL STNPH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4559/2011 cuTtVL.™. Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4593/2011 cTAwiAv ..... Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4610/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4650/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4651/2011 AMAR NATH SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4827/2011 GANESH PRASAD Petitionerin W.P.(C)4923/2011 BHUPALSINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5024/2011 SURENDERSINGH AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5028/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4775/2011 RAKESH KU|V|AR AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5247/2011 RAI^ DASS Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5254/2011 VISHAMBARJHA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5255/2011 DINESH KUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5257/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5258/2011 RAJESH CGUPTA AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5261/2011 LAKHPATI AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5262/2011 SOHAN LAL AND ORS. ..... Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5263/2011 KEDARI Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5264/2011 ARUN' KUIVIAR ALIAS LUCKY Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5277/2011 T MITHU LAL Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5292/2011 i^OHD. ZAHID Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5312/2011 SHAKEELAHMED Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5317/2011 NAND KISHORE Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5402/2011 RINKU KUi^iAR GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5403/2011 HARJEET KAUR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5405/2011 NARESH KUMAR RAO AND ORS Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5408/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5410/2011 NABI HASAN Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5411/2011 HARENDERPRASAD Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5413/2011 BHUPINDERSINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5418/2011 GOVIND SINGH AND ANR. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5425/2011 BAL CHAND GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5444/2011 MUNNA THAKUR @ RAMESH THAKUR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5^73/2011 W.P.(C)4347/2011 and connectedmatters Page2 of8 ANIL KUMAR AND ORS SUNDER SINGH '••• m W.P.(C) 5484/2011 DHARAfV! VEER SINGH 5485/2011 MAHESH pal SINGH W.P.(C) 5497/2011 RAJ RANI Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5498/2011 DULI CHAND ••••• Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5503/2011 SHANTA RAM .in W.P.(C) 5504/2011 MAHENDERPAL Petitionerin VV.P.(C) 5505/2011 PAAA/AN-KyMARSING