Nabi Hasan v. Ndmc and Anr

judgment. / a: To give a brieP background oP the dispute, .-learned counsel for I.he respondent/NDMC. wa.lked this Court through sorne prominent deci.sions oP the ;.Supreine Court rendered Prom tinie to time, whicti relate I.o privet.loiil. pV.P.(C) 4-7^l3/:i01X, 5254/2011 ffi <:onnecL<sd nisl.ters- " 4, of 2B . •v • ! i • V, squatllers/hawkers,sLarbng rrorn the decision in Llie case or Sodan binyh Ys':,NDMCJuQj:s,,re|Dorl:ld'as.(i9'98}2SCC 727, l;he interim..rderdaLerl ;03.;03.2006IDassed by the Suprenne..Court in •¥W,..|P..(C)- 1699/1987 •.entitled 5Mdhir Ma'dan &Qrs. vs.. MCD, the PinaPjudgmentin cnso uP • c;,,dhir'Madanf.supral.Reportedas-(2009). .17 see 597 and.lasl.ly, the. judgmentdated O8..1O:201O.passed in the case oP Gci!nda.Km(sui;'!"^)-. ;5,.'^ I_earned counsel for the respondent/NDMCvehementlyopposed l.lie prayer of the petitioners/vendorsPor grant of intei'inn-ordei'S iesl.iaining the i-espondent/NDMCfrom removing-them from the sil.es occi.ipied l.iy^ thern tilP ttie enactment oP'an appropriate -legislation, in terms nt l.iie directions.-issued by the Supreme Court in the., case oP Ci.aii.ida .,!<.a.n,i (supj-a). She particularly rePerred to the observations ma(.le .by the i • Supreme Court in paras 40 and '-IJ. oP the judgmen.1:in tPie case o'P Sod.a.i.) ; - S'li'igh .(s.u.|D.'!."a,),, whicPi -dealt with tlie immediaLe eviction oP unaul.lloi i/:.ed, .! squatters/tiawkers and laid emphasis on tl'iiE! fact tPvat in tlie said car,e, tlie Supreme Court hgd directed rerhoval oP unauthorized squatters/linwkers without awaiting final allotment oP sit'es to be allotted l,o eligible clainiMnl:.'; .-• at ttie places recommended by tlie Thareja Comrhittee 6i" suggesletl liy •;j the .Ni;>MC.- •' ' ..: .• 6: Again,, in tPie interim order dated

03.'03..200G passeiJ in Sudhir, :• iyiadaii's case fsuora).. the following observation ma\.le by the Suprenie-' Court was highlighted by the counsel for the respondent/MDMC:: -• • " fCJ 4/4-3/2011^ 5'254/201.l Si connected matters Fcrge .'r of 2'! •T-.) •_/ "While we , undertake this exfercis®, .we diiect the Authorities to see to it that those persons, who aie carrying on hawking activities or who are squatting on public land, without any authority, even in accordance with the present, day schenie in force, are leinoved Porthwith. .this includes unauthorized hawking, squatting on public streets, Pootpaths•and public paiks, including playground.We direct the DelhrAdrninistratmn to take steps immediatelyin collaborationwith M(..D and-N.DMC with necessary assistance Prom Deltii I'olice -to /clear the roads, ' streets, Pootpaths, parks etc. I'.iy ' unauthorized occupants/squatters/hawkers." • • >i

¶7As to 'the judgrn'e-ht dated :l.7-0b.2007 i"en,dei'ed in the (..iise ul Sudhii;..Kaclan.XsiJiJra^^ much emphasis was laid ,by.'the coun.s-el for ttie respondent/MDMC on paras' 28 to 30 and 35, •.wliich are iepi udnced I'lereinbelow for ready reference "28. The New Delhi Municipal Cornirlittee has al.so submitted its Scheme. We have considered ttie Sclienie • submitted before us. Ttie area whichjfall.s undei" NLTMl.. does not ci-eate problems such as', those in. ttie ai'ea.'i' under-MCD. However, in the said-Scheme.reference l-in? been .made to persons who do not-have perniis^ion ;under Section

22.5 or licence Linder Section 330 of tlie . 'NDMC Act, 1994 but who' are unauthorisedly continuing to-carry on business as tiavv/kers/strget vendors. Ihtly .have been described as those who are. "tolerated" in ttie '.IMDMC area. We Pail" to undei'stand why,any person wlio violates the law should be tolerated. Eittier they stiould be compelled to obey ttie law or the law may be suitably aiTiended, if it is found to create undue I'lardstiipi. l he problems need to be addressed by the legislature or' tlie ruleiTiakin'g authority. We,'therefore,, observe tliat if •is felt that.the persons wtio fall in ttiis' categor.y. lecniire .• special protection, the /Act may be su'itably aniended to •• co.ve.r their cases or else nu'rnb'er. of sud"i illegal squatters may increase fi'om time to ti.rne. W.P.rCJ 4-74-3/201.t, 5254/2011 !l< connected maUers PagQ (i.ijf 29-There has been no serious obje'cLion i:o Lhe.bchenie •sLibmitled by NpMC which is'.a comprehensive schenit:;. Certain directions have, however, been sought Po'r (lorn this' Court. ' We approve tlie Schehie subinitted by NDMC-' :

¶30It is, submitted before us that the Scheme.s wliich have been approved by this Court must be sul:.)ifict to-any Act o,r rules that hiay be Trained ii'i consonance',with the National' Policy on Urban-Street •Vendors.. ,i.t goes •without saying that we have approved the Schemes as framed by MCD and NDMC. the legislature intervenes and' frames anotiier scheme or regulations g'overniny such Scliennes, that will certainly supersede ttu-;: Schemes pi'epared by MCD and NDMC. It,is well settled that any administrative action is always subject'to law that may be framed by the competent legislatui'e.

¶35Subject to the aforesaid rnodifications/cl'ianges in •the, Schernes submitted -by, MCD and-NDMC, the sanie 'are approved. The said authorities stiall now' tal<c appropriate-steps to implen'ient-the Scheme forthwith. In case' of any difficulty faced by theih iii iu'iplernenting ' the schemes, ttiey shall li'ave the liberty to apply to.tljis Court." S. - Lastly, in the rece'iot judgment in tfie caseM::)r Gaijida Jlajjl /''"learned counsel for tlie', responderit/NDMC specifically I'elied ufjon p,aras,, •| - 30, 31^'50 to 66 to state that tlie Supreme Court was conscious of tl.ic. ; fact that a structured regulation and legislation is urgei'itly requiicd lo i control ancf regulate the fundarriental right of liawking. Slie rils(,) puintedr out -that tl'iS' three' tier disputes redressal n:iecliani,sm set out in affidavit filed by the then Chairperson •of,,tl'ie NDMC was taken. ii(,)l.e of I'ly' , • the Supreme'Court in'para 72 of the aforesaid judgment "and inpnia '73, it was then observed as below:- ' • ' •• W..P.('C_)'ty43./20:ll, 5254/201X Si connecter/ nrat.l.ers Payo 7 of •• -1 t:• :• "73. In-paragraph 12 or the'aPPiclavitit has been stated ^that: the^-e ..shall be an Appellate Authority which shall attend' to the" redressal' oP grievances • oP squattei s, fiawkers, .traders, .residents or any ..other person by hearing appeals against the decision of the. Vending 'committee (Main). Paragraph 12 oP that aPPidavit is sot Out,below:- ' . . There shall be Appellate yAuthoiity. On. tlve Porwarding oP petitions ' received l:).y Chaii-person,• .this Authority' shall attend :i.o redressal of "grievances •oP squatters, liawkers, traders, residents or a.ny other person". Mm Authority shall also hear, appeals against Hie decision oP Vending Comriiittee (P^ain). Decisions oP this /Authority unless challenged bePoie a lligjier Forum> or in any Competerit Court, sliall be linnl. Tills'Atithority sl'iall be initially headed by a |.ierson appointed by the Chairperson h,aying.at least .10 years legal or judicial background.. Tlier'e can lio more than one member in this Ai.il.'hority."

¶9APter rTia~king.the aPoresaid observations, .in paras 74 to /b o-P tluo, judgment, the'Suprerne CouiT went on to obsei-ve'-as below.: "74. .In the said arPidavit, wl-rich was aPPinried bel-'oie this Court on" 24^'' August, 2010 it has been stated that MDMC shall comply with tlie o'rders . wtiich woi.ild lid passed by the adjudicatory n'lechahis.m contemplated in . . . ' the scheme and which has been approved'by tl iis Com I. for the NDMC area, unless such orders ai"e:n"iade subject' matter of cliallenge before a higlier. forum or in any .-other competent Court. . ' ^ ,, 75'. In view of such schemes,- ttie hawkers, squatter's • and vendors must abide by, ttie Dispute IV:'.dressnl ; scheiTie . mentioned above. ' There . should 'not' be ai'iy ' '^direct approach to this Court by wa.y of fresh petition or ^I/As, bypassing ttie tOispute I"<edi''es5al Mech -•'•provided in the sctierne. ' yl7yJ-3/20il, 5254/20X1 connected maUers , ' Taye O ofza •7 • 76-. However, before 30'-" June; 20:1.1, 'l:he appro|:.)rial.e • - • Gov.ernment is to enact a law on-the basis oP tlie I3ill mentioned above, or oil the basis" oP.any amer.u.inie,iit _ • .• , tl'iereoP so that the hawl<er5 .may' precisely know the contours of their rights." . • / ^ •10. It . was thus sought to' be', contended on belialP, ' Ot ilie respontlent/NDMCthat there can be no vacLium as Par as regulation.nl > .trade Of street'hawkers/vendors in the NDMC jurisdictionis concenie..lniu.l . bh'e, failure on the'part of the legislature to abide.-by the tiinelin.eset ai.if. ' by the Supreme Court in'the case .of Gainda'.Pxairi(siipra)., by puttiru.) in place a, statute on or bePore 30.06.2011,,cannot be inteipreted.by the. petitionei-s/vendors to mean tfiat they can •continue their tiado u.nhindered at pny place.oP their choice in the• NDM'C :|url.SLlicl.ion,in rm unreguiated .,manner and wittiout any•obsti"uction oi' otijection hoin l.l ie • NDMC: . • • .

¶11Learned counsel Por the responde.nt/NDMC particulaiiy rePe.ired lo • paras /4 and oP-the aforesaid judgment to .s.ttite tliat. the f.li..s|)ute redress.al scherne, noticed by.the Supreme Co'uit in. para 75 was the one • ttiat was legally functioning in IMDMC jurisdiction and .whicli was tril<en note of by the CoLirt in, the.preceding. para 74.. .In.Other woi'ds, .she stated that the scheme as set out in the a.PPidavit dated 24'...(;')8-2010, Piled liy the, . • • . ' ' _ c. . then Chairperson oP NDMC before the Suprerne Court in Gajjida .Kai)i';;f case isup.ral, was the one which was 'finally approved by the. Supremo Court. S.he PurtIler subiriitted that assuming, without admitting,'i hat the • •^?-43/201%, 525-^1/2011 &• canrisc!:ed mgi.ters ' ,, ' F3£;e 9 w'f ./K )• . • J • dispute redressal'scliemeset out by the i^JDI^C liad lapsed on 30'.C..:/()1.1, • : as clain'ied^bythe petitioners,then the NDMC .Act provides an adequato Fallback to-ensure orderly management oP vendors in the area. .Si^f-'ci-lit. i' reference was. made in. this regard-to the |:jrovisionscontained in .bci.lion.s 221, 224, 225 and :226 oT-the said Act. • • '

¶12It was.'.furtherargued by tf)e counsel for the re.sponder)l:/NI.';)IVI(..that ;• -the applicatian fited by;the NDMC-beforethe Supreme Court in .InlY 20 1-I. ' praying /nfer.a//a for extension of time, to regulate liawkers/squatlers-.in the NDI^C-area, as per the scheme nnentioned-intii;e.judgnient in Gginda i • Ram's case CsuPra"), till ttie enactmentof a'law by.'the legislatui'ei.n that regard, .had not yet been finally disposed of by the Supreme .Couit at tl)e ; time of-[.Sassing of the stsfus quo order "dated 15.07.20i 1' and .similarly, the other application .filed by one of the hawkers/vendors prayjiiy inler - .a/za-for-restraining the resp.ondent/l\ID|v|C fj-oni gTcinting Tehbaztjri rights i.o the winners of the'- lucky draw of lots foi' allotmei'it, which was to tie held on .12.05.2011-or any date tliei'eafter, was alsy • pein.liiiy . - - . . 'i _ consideration before the-Supreme Court. l--le.nce, no finality could be atta.checl to the order dated

15.7,2011 which can only be corisii.lci ei I-an Interim nneasure till the final disposal of the aforesaid. appncation.s or the : enactment of a legislation. ' ' .'.1.3. On merits, learned counsel.for the-respondent/NDMC re.reri;ed to l.he ' affidavit dated

01.08.2011 filed by tlie Director. (Enforcement), l\li:>-MC, ! - W-P.(CJ./1-743/.20.1S.,5.254/20X1 Sr. conneciesi 'inalS.ers • . fage io <:f 2Jf • wherein-ifwas sLatecl' l:h3"l; pursuant l;o the public.'notice issued Liy Uk-! :: 'NDIn^C inviSng applications, under the NDMC Urban Street.Vending ' scheme irv^he year 2007, the 'respondent/NDM.C had received 4:i67 . applications':The documents required by the applicants Tor regislratfun • "under the Scheirie included a proop'op age, ,docun-ientaryprool/ariidayit •.ror the purpose of annual i.ncome, proot'oPresidence", pruoP in siip|ii.)il.np •.special categorieslike handicapped,Kaishiriiri•migrants etc. and |.)KM)P uI ,. squatting,in the .^ISIDMG area, iP any. In para 4 oP the aPoresaid aPfidnvit, : .the Pollo\A/ing criteria ap.proved/adoptedby l:he A/ending Cominiltee l() •shortlist the eligible applicants is set out:- "4. That the .criteria approved/adopted by the Vending Committee to shortlist tPve eligible .applicants is a?' . . under;- ' ^

(j) Ttie apiillicantssliould be resident oP Delhi, witit tiis •name registered in electoral rolls as ..per abstract oP ... ph.oto E-P-loll or Ei-^O certiPicate.

(ii) TPie applicant should be a major, viz. witPi over. 1f. years of age as per valid birth cei4'.iPicate "or a'ge • • certiPicate or school certiPicate etc. . • (iii) The applicant should be a neecl.y" as |:ier lnr:(.ime records of DC (Revenue) or.as vulnerability i"gcoitI.s. oP Government oP NCT.oP Delhi (Sama;iilc Suvicllia. Sangani: .vulnerable'and most vulnerable category). ' (iv) The-app'licant s(|;iould be registered as per NDlvu,; , . Street Vendors' Sch.e.me. The policy veriPication oP the applicant slipuld be available. • • • •••

(v) The applicant or his ' dependent Pairiily nieiiibci' should not be.employed or should not'have any dl;h(-'.i tehbazari/yending or ariy other bu-siness. pi'er.nises in .Qelhi as pen'record veriPication oP NDP:^!C/MCD. V\(.P.{C) 47^13/Zdl 5254/20X1 S\.'Cor?net:t:s(i matters Prige ,1 './J'i ••(vi) Preference will be given to applicants whc)^ 31 e physically handicapped or widows ,01'; senior citiz^ens 'a,bove GO years -or Kashiniii n:iigrants or' SC/&> I -(necessary certificate to be submitted and rela.)<ation may be given" in the above criteri.a)'."

¶14As per the respondent/NDI^IC, the category-wise list of elimbJe shortlisted 'applicants in terms of the aforesaid criteria totalled Jo applicants. ,• The amdavit dated-01.0.8.2:011 states' that tli-e respondent/NDlviChas identified 183. new' spaces; in addition to' I.Iih .?0.;.i .remainingsp.aces identified by the Thareja Corrmiitteeiri the IMDMC.. area, which were availably' for allotment, thus taking the total numUei of availablespaces to 386. It was furtherstated tficjt clue to factois like de-- •listing of the Parliam'fent Street on securi.ty ,grounds, coristr-uctionol •flyovers. ancl'^Metro-Stationsat various locati'ons in' the NIDMC ju.iisdiction, the number of authorized tehbazsri squatters .has changed, frou'i to 404 in ,nun-iber. • The' number of^ applicants, who the .respondei.'il:/l\ll.)ML claims, are vending unauthorisedly at' Connaught Place, Saixrjini Ma,gar', ;-Par-Jram en t Street and Danpath areas and .in wfiose favour, slml.iis QUO ortlers are operatin,g, is stated to be'323 in number. 1 he. affidavit asserts thai; simply because the names of tl1.e petitioners,' wlio are registerodl wilh MD'MC,., figure in the eligibility list drawn by the respontlent/Nl.iMc;;, .cannot be treated as proof of their regularly ve'r'Kring in tlie IMDMC: ai'ea and nor'.does it confer on them any enforceable vested riglit to en.s.i.rre a. vending space for thern ;in the MDMC area, which is directly dependent on Vir,P.(C) 4743/2011^ 52'5^f/2-011 Si connected matters . P^ige. 12 nl'-Zn r y ' ' )• Lhe number of.spacesavailable'. Thus, 11. was contended thai; neither tJui •possession.of any number oP challans, nor the absentee tliereotca.n make a. difference, Tor the i-eason that chalia.ns cannot form the basis ftir the ,pel:.i;tio.nersto claim any vested legal right to squat at, a given s|:.>ar;e. •:1.5. -Counsel for' the •'res|3orident/ND,MC. asserted that [ire^vent petitiojTS ardo'iot maintainable iiTasmuch as the .petitioners have an . equally, efRcEicious al.ternate remedy , oT approaching ttie a|ipell.ate authority constituted by the• Chairperspn, IMDMC,- Por i-edressal ol Iheii' grievances•and failure on their part, to have approached tlie Vending . Comn-iittee is not'on account,oP tl'ie fact Lliat'ttie said Committee including. • the appellate autl'iority is not functioning, but because they fia-ve (ound it' .more-convenient to bypass tfi'e aforesaid forum ajid appro,ach this (Jnuii: directly, which is' not permissible. She stated' ttiat extensive measurers liave been taken by the?rgspondent/l\IDMC to eonstitiite ttie adjudic.atoi y •rnecl'ianism by.way of a,three tier system'in the following rnannei";- ' Vending Sub-Comniittee (Site of Spaces), " • Z- ' 'Vending Sub-Com,miti:ee (l-leath arid.H'lygiene) and

¶3, Vending Sub-Committee (Enforcement). -16. • She stated that tlie creation of the aforesaid three' Vendii.K.) Sul.)- CoiTirnittees, Vending. Committee (M.ain), -as also o-f the appellate ai.itln)iily whicl'i was constituted - to redress grievances of tlie S(.-|natters, •• .hawkers, .traders', residents or any other'•per5,an4 against the dci.isiun of |. W.P.{CJ4?'yf-3:/2011^_52S^/'2dilSi connectediustters : Page XJ ctf7.U ; 'A " the Vending Committee(Main), was placed before l.he bupierne Luni I. lui considerationand the said three tier adjudfcatory mechanism was .duly •; approveclin the j\iclgiTieMTt.ofGaljic!iLJiaJIL.(^l2raJ.- ; • • ...17. Per .contra,,' leamfed counsels for the petitioners/vendurs,w4ur appeared-on-difrerent-dates,'vehernenth/ opposed thfe aroresaid .stand. ;• taken by the respondent/l\lf)MG and asserted that the scheme floated hy .the resp-ondent/MDMC.for_ regulating vending activities in its .•jui-|.'^;didJon .7' .had lapsed on 30-06.2Clll-.inthe absence of the enactmentof a leyislal.ion •j ..as;.per,direGtions'ofthe SuprenieCourt in the case'-ofGMllda.Jiani and as on date, there is no'schefriein existence. It was canva.ssed ttiat !: the in-iplicaBon;of the aforeisaid order oP status quo passed; by the Supreme-Gourton .15.07,.2011can only,mean that irrespectiveof'the lad: •' whether" Ihe squatting, is •legal or illegal, ttie same b.e pefmittexl to- .r - continue' oh an''as is' wl^iere is' basis, and_ such sLcitus quo is to lie ; maintairiied-.by all the pai'ties.till a law is framed by tlie legislature. ' 5I8. Mr. B.B., S,awhn.ey, .Sr. /Advocate appearing Tor the.' . . • • . • , . ' • .ipe'titioner.s/yendors submitted .that in the Case nf'Gaindg f-laI'l'i-(supic]),'thev . '.Supreme-Court had directed that tlie appropriate'governrnerit must enacf a law on or before

30.06.2011 so that ttie• hawkers-may ,rjreci.sely l<now lihie contours of their righiis, lience dispute redressal n''ier:-hnnism provided for in .the scheme mentioned' in tl'ie al'.oi'esaid ju'dgmenl; could-, operate only upto

30.05.2011 .and thereafter, .'the said schej.n.e would- -i '>'VJ'.(C) 4743/2011^ 525^lf/Z011 Sk connecl.ed rnaa«3rs Page Jyl aP 2H ' "i, autornciticaHvstand lapSecl^ l-ie stated that no,otherinterprotaUoncan Uh ^I .given to tl1e orderdated15.07.2011,.direking rnaiciterianceoP sfal(;/:vquo, • in view oP the ciLialifying-woi'-ds,"as it is oljLa.injngtoday . Me oujut-d - •j. ' -ir the scheme was continuing to operate,, as -ciain-ied by. Uit ile'.l . V.-' counsel for the respondent/NDMC,then there.was'nogood reason fur l:he respond.ent/fNI^MCto have refrained from hold.i.ng a.'draw of luls, which: : . was -5|.atdWrtl-resprneda^, i..e., ;l 5.07.2011,and that TaGt^tyPfh-cn..Ke.r, ' '1 is that even the respondent/MDMChad undersLood the sLalxis-qin>:i.m\ev to nnean l:hat there is no^ scheme.in.placeaPl;ei-;30.6.2011,Por (.he rens.on 'in .para 68 of thq aPoresaid judgment in /the case oP .Gaindn..Kdni. [supra^, all the writ petitions.and the interfrn applicationsPiled bePore the •.. • • SuprenieCourt were disposedof with cleaKancI-.s|3,eciPicdlrectlonsMlial:l.he ; problem-•oP hawking .and street vending"'could be requlnled by the • •• . schernes' Pramed by the MDMC and MCD only-upto .JO.06.20.1.1 i-.iiid not ' • ; thereaPtei".. -It was asserted Qi>. behalP oP the petitioiiers/vendoi s tPiat ns ' ' on date, the directions of the Supreme Court tjnat sl:al:u5 quo is io be : • . •; mairitained by the parties can only be given one.'lnterpretal.ion, •which i.^i ' . • , . ttiat till a law is ultimately enacted by the Parlian'ient, irrespective D.r .lheii legal status, all the petitioners/vendors would be permitted 'to c(. squatting/hawking at.th.e sites-that Piave beei'i occupied by bl)em.' • ' i '.1:9. .TnsoPar as the composition oP the dispute'redressal meclinni,'-. I concerned, learned Senior Advocate Por tlie-petitioners si.ibniitl.t'.(.l .! ' cdnti'-.aiy -.to understanding oP the respondent/MDMC, tlie .'M-.h •Wf.t\(c) 4743/2011, S254/2-011 B, cunnBciMd inaVters Page :>5, i/iT ./B Ls :1s I • • reprocfucedat paras 72'and 73 in. the judgment-Intlie case uT Gainda l.lain • (supj-a)', was-not the one which was a.-ctualiy recognized by t.he Siii..irain..R• Court,;and-.rather It is tlie dispute tedressal sqheme ^mentioned in pa-i a-7.',. oF the'.aforesaid judgment i.e., 'a scheme-Tor'urban sl:-reet vendois'-Poi IMDMC area, as"-formulated in the yegr-.ZOOe.,,.'v/vhlc-h was , ull in vc:i|,ely- ' •• approved-by the Supreme Court on 17.05.2007, iri the-ca.5e of SM(|liir • Madan (supra)., which'is the scheme wl'iich Finds'mention speciFifniJy in - the Followingpara 74 ancris the one approved by the'-.Supreine Colnt. II. was contended that'even otherwise, the National, Capital Territory o-F tJellii Laws (Special Provisio.ris) Act,, 2011 (hei-einaFter reFei'red to as .'.'bpeciiiilill I • PiriDviislooE--Acit'')coni.es to the-rescue oF the petitioners For.tlie. reason i; that'sub-claUse

(2). oF .Section, 3 oF tiie Special. Provisions /-\cf iriandates : . maintenance oF status quo as on

01.01.200G, notwithstanding aiiy ,, judgment,• decree or order of any court,-in respect oF encroachment oi , unautFiorize.d developn:nent. Ttius, it was - sub.miti.ed on behalF oF Ihe petitioners/vendors ttiat ;they vuere entitlpd to grant-oF'interim r..)rc)lccl ion -' till ttie enactment oF a legislation to regulate havyking/vending activilies in ' urban streets in Delh.i on the basis oF the NationaT Policy on Ui'l.)ai'i ^-il.reet •• •• I •:• , • • - . •' i \|eiielors,.2(3$'9 framed on .17.06:2009and the Spe;cfal ProvisionsA.ct;- 2:0. With ' reFei.-ence to tl'ie Special Pi'ovisions Act, learned ^^inniin ^\dvocate ..For tl'ie^ petitioners stated "that phrase, ".unautitS).ri;^.ed - ••de\/elopment". used in ttie cleFinitiori clause has to .be seen i!'i llie-^.anie • • coni.ext as ttie one in which the.phiase'."encroachmt5!nt" has been-deFined, ^7^3/2011, 5254/3011 fh connecl:ed nt3!.[:e.rs^ ' ' Paye .fO <;r ^whereln.it is.'mentionedthat putting Up of'temporary,semi-tempc|raryor' .permanent'strbictLire.for residential use or commercial use or any ol:her use,-and,the, placementoT-goods on the pavements by the petiti^)n(:.K.ii.. l,iabl-,fe to be termed as unauthorized-use Por n;iaintanningstatus quo' iindei-the;Special Provisions,Act,. Much emphasis was laid on ttve avei-mcnl.s V • i ' • I made by the respondGnt/MDMCin its inteiin-i appiicaWon fiJed beruti?<-l:,.h.e Suprem,eCourt in Gaind'd Ram's case (supra) in-july 20:1.1, t(-) submil: Uial, th.e respondent/NDlviCitself had stated, in the,said-application-that the -scheme, had lapsed and therefore, the only interpretation that can ba given to the • status "quo order.passed by;.ti-ie-Supreme (...ourl; on. •15.07'.2011 dan be that' no. scheme would exist after

30.0(-.'.2,(.)I .1 and thus, the benefit of the Special Provisions/-Vet ought to be extended to l.he petitioners-. He -subniitted that the phrase 'street vendors' has been clearly defined under the National Policy on Urtlan Street ,N/endoi-5,,20(.)'..;'. . Reli,ance was,placed in the case of Patri Vvapar Mandal Pe[lii..(;KGy.d.).ys, MCD Town H.all Sl Ors:, reported as (20(Di'9) 12 SCC 475 . ,and ,l,li-e provisions of the Special-.Provisions /-Vet to submit'that even the .Supionie Court' had recognized th-e fact that the Special Provisions /-Vcl; i.v; the only • Central • Law. governing, field and it would have primacy gvef •nlhe.r ^ Statutes a^nd administrative-orders: 'It is tfius stated that the prf.ivi,'-;ions .of the IMD'MC /-Vet cannot be •in'voked by the respo'nd-ent/MDMC as.tl'ie ^aid ' /-\ct is n-ot in consonance.'witl'i'/-Xrticle 96 of the Constitution tjf .l.ndia an(.-l •furthei-rnQj^e^,-tl'ie Special Provisions /-\ct being" valid till the,, enil ol^ W.P.fCJ S25:4/20'.tl ffi connected maUe'S Page 1 7 of xn . .(• •• M. ; . -j • J " i Dec^pber2011, no orders in clerogaUonof the provisions oP the srii.ii.! Ae:l, can fie passed- • ' , . -21/ Mr' •S:l<:. .Tripathi;. Advocate appearing l:or some of petitioners/vendorssouglit to ernbellisli tlie subn'iissionsoP Mi ...M.ivvlii,.iey, Sr.Advocate and relied qn i:he oi'ders passed-in V\V,.IP..(Cj i/ll/liVZ/O-H.-H. entitled Mohrl' T-^mail vs. NDMC' 8^ Ors.. to '.urge ttrat the "Appellate .Authority" constituted under the dispute redressal rnechanisn) -Inr the NDMC area, has-noC been functioning,whicti fact he stated is bo.ine-oul •fro-nVa periisal of the order dated 0S:03.2011-passed in tfie nljorcv^aiur ' case, wherein,the Court took notice of the claim' of the petitioner/veju.lor •therein to th'e -effect that inspiiie of orders passed, by tlie /-Vppellate /-Xutliority aTlo.wing squatting-at a particular site, till "a final deteririinnl.i(.)n .,...by the Vending Committee'as to his eligibility,the respondent/MDMLand the' police were 'disturbing fiis activities. , In the aforesaid .order, the •stateh'le.nt .of the. counsel fo)' the respondent/IMlDMCwas recoirlt-MJ to Ihe effect that the-appellate authority; whose order was;beii'ig relied .upon by the petitioner therein, was constituted ii'iitially for tlie MCD ai eas,and later starte.d. fLinctioning. for the NDMC areas as well, for tlie reason that at l.liat time, .there .was no separate-.appellate autliority'for the NDMC areas, bul. .subsequently, in accoixiance, with tlie scheme appro.ved by'tfie'Suprenie Court, Chairperson,.. NDMC had constituted ,a separate 'ap|".iellale authority'-for-.the NDMC areas. Tlierefore, l';he appellate ai.itlior.ity appointed earlier had cea'sed to liave jurisdiction qua the ND-MC arcn/... It m.P. (C) 47-<l3/20]l S254-/201X &connected maae-rs • • Paye lO'Of 2B A r-r-dy-. was thus contended on behalP of the petitioners/vendors .l.lial the- . aPoresaid order clearly indicates that the appellate.authorityin the Nl.oMe. • areas is not Punctioning. .

¶22Reliance was also placed on. the minutes.^bP the rneetincj oP the , • Vending Committee dated 11.03.2010, to clain-i thai: if the Pact oP-MN/lietlier there was actual s.quatting/vending was veriPied-by ,the Comniittet-: .niuJ il the names bP-the-petitioners/vendors figured in tlv^,eligibility:Hsl pre!fx?ir.e(J by the reS:pdncleht/IMpiyidfor holdingthe draw of lots, Lheki it did'nntHhe^^u:; • ;• [ the mc^uth oP the i-espondent/NDMCto:clain'ithat the |".ietil:ioner.Sy.-wPin hod^' -been verified: and found to be eligible, were not ei')titled to .^gi.int at'I •various sites in the IMDMC area aPter 30.06.2011''.- . ' • 23-In rebuttal, cbonsel Por resporident/NDMC Liis|.nil.e(.l .the contentions oP the petitioners/vendors and while, reiterating lier earliei". • subrnissioj.'is,' ass.erted tPiat the petitioners cijd ,not liave aiiy legally '•enforceable .right, created-on basis oP the eligi.bility list di nwn l..)y. I\IE)MC,'.Peu:claiming, grant oP-interin-i orders in theii" PavoLir'. .SI,in again - rePerred to p'aras 68, 69', 75, 76 and 78 oP the judgment in tl:ie cip - •Gairida 'Rarn fsupra^, to emppiasize tliat when' the •aPoresaid para.s ai(-v • read cpljectively, it is clear tPiat the ' petitioners cannot ch-jiini an , . . • enti-tlernent to any interim orders as sought ;by,them in tlie "'i-'ie.5:ent . proceedings. She further stated that even 'ottierwise, tl'ie , .Speriiril ' Provisions Act relied upon by "tPie petitioRers-.has duly recognized • S743/2011, S25^l-/Z01S. Sv conneclert tnaSXiBrs Prngf; 19 ni :zn ^ . 'i f. • •, f :^schemes'preparedby the local authorities in. the"N'.ational-CapiLal Tei rilory :Of" Delhi for regulation of.-urban street vendors. 'To SLibstariXiate Ihe said •submission^, ?he di'ew-the attention oP this Court to the pr^arr'ible oP tlie aforesaid ••/Act/' which mentions the Pact that all the scheh'ies preprii-ed l.iy local authorities , in National .Capital Ter'ritory of ID'elhi, for .regulation of urban street vendoi:s in accordance with the NotioMal L'(,)licy, on Urban-.S"treet Vendprs, 2009 and. the Master Plan Por Dellii \, have been implemented and further that more time is required It'i: preipcr impleniiSn.tation of tl'ie schemes regardijig •hawi<ers and urban: sl:reeL • vendors. . , •' • — '

¶24A 'specific reference was made by the learned counsel. "Por tl-)R •. respondent/NDjvic to Section 2(l)(c) of the Special Provisions Act, wliich defines the,.'phra5e "encroachment" to claim-that it does not covci' !.lie petitionei'rs herein, who'are squatters.' Further rePerence was made l.o tlie provision' of Section 3 of the Special Provssi'ons Act, wliich contains a mou' obstante .clause, to state that quo with, rega.rd to tfie en.crciacl'inieiil. , or unauthorized development as on '01.01.2006, mentioned in the said provision,' was in . the context of defii'iitibi'i o.P tl')e -'|.)lirase.'s encroachmejit" and "unautl'iorized develdprhent" set out in the dc.Pinil.ion clause at .Sections 2(l)(c) and' 2(l)(i) .respectively oP' tPie , .'.-^fiecial ProvisionsAct and thus,- the petitioners/vendorsdid not quariPy',uritierLl-)e afoi Gsaid eii.actmen.tPor claiming protectionasnone oP. the incjrerMnnts.set out in the-provisions of.the aforesaid enactment .are Pound to exist in their W.l^.CCJ^y43/201x/52S^t/Z0XXffi connectednjsiters Pag^20\rf-J.U '•'1 « vi? ; ca'se. It was SLibmi'tbed that the Spe'ciat Provisions Act, wliidi crime i:i effect Jn -the year.^ 20-07 •and . has' been '•extended •Ti-am 'tiiTJe . to •Lii'ne ta'Stly, 'itii'l.DaceVihb'er 2(3-1''does

i)of' £ji,V0|peTinissiosi) to p-ffifsons i fV si iiVl:'. f' ! ( ' • •• •• any aetivi'ty, onpe^ they •have-been rWibved civic nijJli(.)Vity and • i simijaiiy, the Scheme 0^ 2009 does ndli. entitfe tlie registi'ants to s(|iiat •; unless th-ey have been allotted a.specin.t site. In support of tite aloiesaid j -, subiTiission, •reliance was place on the judgrnent -in tlje case of MCD vs. ' •' . : - Gui'inam Kaur reported as (1989) 1 SCC lOi. ' For tl ie lyi.iri.io.se. ul' ' • I • interpretii'ig the meaning of the ptira'se, '''structure", reference-was mndp. to. the judgnient of Supreme • Court . in" the case - af MuMiLijia] - ' Corporation of Greater Bombay •& Ors. vs. In-diai'i Oil Corporation. Ltcl.. reported -ss-AIIR i9.91''SC 6;86.' For the purpose of understandii'ig tlicv expression,, 'status'qu'oV reference was made to:'the judgn'ient iii the r.asp. of Messrs.'-BKarat Coking Coal Limited vs. State oP Bihar'Be Ors. re|:)(.ii'tcd n.s. 1987 (Sy|,]p) SCC 394 to submit that in ordinai'y legal connotation, .I'.ho •• f, ' • • ' • • • term quo' imiplies the existing state of tl'iings at any given |.)uint of time." • ' • ^

2.5. As for the National Policy on Urban Street Vendor's, counsel for tlu; respondent/NDMC stated that'both, the 2004 p'olicy and the 2(.)0'-) policy, find mention in •the:.decision of the Supren.'ie Cdui:t.in tl'ie case cif Gajn,,da .. Pvam f'supi'a) and it .Was-only' after takjng iri'to:-'consideration sai'd " 'policies, • did-the Court directed tl'ie institutiona'lization of url)rin .':;lir.M-''l vending' through legislation. It was further stated' that, at-the. l.ime -of : 4^743/201.t^ ,5254/2pXl-Bi connec<:e.d'niB!J:ers P^ge 2:t. of 2l.t- •f-' I' . delivering the judgment dated &].;l.0.2010,- the Supren'ie Court tunk.nni.ic-e ot the: NCT.o.r Delhi Laws-(Special l^rovisions) /Act, 2009, whicti wa? vnlic.l upto

30.1.2.2010, apart rrom noticing the' l^lodel .Street' Vendors (Protectron-of Livelihood and Flegulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2'ooy introduced by Government o.r India, l^linistry of I'lousing .i'l Llil.iaii Poverty Alleviation. She' stated that nothing new i.s now beiitg .si,il)mlil.led by the-petitioners/vendors herein, for the' present petition.;; l.o be •entertained for any purpose-whatsoever and all the grievances raised by petitionel'S can easily' be •addressed, before tfie ' VoruJiny Cornmitteej/appeilate authority under the .scheme relating to urlinii .slicet vending in the NDI^C area, which fora colitinue to ren'iain functional, oven after 30.6'.201i. • ' . - ' ; 26.. Tl'iis'Court has heard these matters at length since

17.f.'..20 I. I., on different dates. Various counsels for tlie petitioners/vendois and (.lie Standing Counsel for .the respondent/NDMC ha.d addi'essed •the (''^ourl;. Tl'reir respective arguments liave been take.n note of. Botir side.? jinve "made strenuous efforts to explain what status qu.o ordei' dated' • 1.5.7.2011. passed by Supi'eme Court -in case .of Gi.ajn.da Rarn("supra) ihiplies. the leitmotif of tfie arguments .addres.sed on behalf of'the petitioners/vendo-rs is that the status quo order read willi tlie q.ualifying ..words, "as it.is obtai'ning today", suffixed .to the order,, can only' be .read to imply that as on date, i.e., 15..7.2011, there'was no scheme operational in the MDMC areas to regulate vending activities and till a law '>''y.P.(C) 525^/2011 & connecVed rnaixkrs ' .. Fage-7.2 r .• I." is .ultjmatelyenacted'by the legislature, ail, the petitioners, irrespectiveof their legkl-.status,.can •continue squatting/hawking at different sites th.at • have been occupied by them. It is also asserted that in the teeth of the •' status q.uo orders passed-by the SuprenneCourt,^the respondent/NDMCin collusion with the police authorities, is threatening to illegally remove the petitioners/vendors from.-different sites, which is detrimental, adverse, • harassing arid beftigerent to-those, who. have been-found eligilDle'iby;the respondent/NDMC for being allotted specific tehbazari spaces within the NDMC jurisdiction,but are being threatened due to lack of further action •' in .this regard which is Rending at the end of the respondent/NDMC. The • , second limb of submissions made by learned counsels for ; • petitioners/vendors was that the Specjal..Provisions Act would additionally • •. •.corpe to ..the rescue of the, petitioner5;/vendors, which alsg .requires . -maintenance of status, quo as existing on

01.,1.0,.2006, till the., end. of. . Decem'beivZOll.,. ' • ^ , • •••

¶27Qn the other hand, th,e main thrust of the arguments addressed' by • . . the counsel' for the respondent/NDMC was that as the legislature has • failed to enact an appropriate legislation inrterijis of the decision, of. the i . Supreme Court in the case of Gainda Ramfsuprai. the subsequent order , .dated 15.7.2.011 directing 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 parties can • - .' be final'ly'determinedthrough legislation.. It' was--submittedtlrat while , W.P,(C)4743/2011r 5254/2011 &. connected'matters ' 'I j •i • • , •passing me status quo order on 15.07.2011, the Supreme Couit wns conscious...of the • feet tiiat the Pciriiament" had yet _to enocl d .••comprehensivelegislation'toregulate urban'street,vending and in such . circun-istances,. it goes without"saying that it was the intent of. the ,(..uuit ithat the entire dispute redressa-l mechanism as-^recognized-inthe case of .Gamcla-EaniCsiLiiral,would continue to remain .iri operation, s(J as lo • regulate the urban street-vendingin .the NIDMC area-, till the legislationi-.n that regard is enacted^ Further, it was' stressed tliat the, ,Sr)ecial, h Provisions Act did not provide any protective urnbi-ella to tlie petitioners,, j whose squatting, activities' neither', fell under delinit-ion of "encroachment",^ nor under "unauthorized development"- .It was fuiiher " asserted tfiat •even otherwise' pending '.an "appropriate legislati.on, tl-ie j. NDMC-Act was available as',a •rail'back option and-'the relevant provisions n in the said enactment would continue to regulate street va-iding; adivity in f . ' - ' ' . • • . - • the NDMC area and the petitioners/vendors could I'lot claim a vested iiglii.' 1'- toisquat at any site of their own. • . /. .1

¶28Fron'i the-above, it is apparent that argiiments and countcr ' " • ' - ' . • ' . • ^ arguments fiave. been raised by botln si-des on thejr respective versions of ; •the-•mean.ing and effect of the status quo order datet.! l..'.-j'..'7.2f).l..l. i • - . - - . •j'. ' passed by^ the Suprenre'Court. It is also very apparent, that tl'ie meaning - sought to be attributed by both--sides as to the' Iniplication of .the said • s •' " ' '! status quo ortler, -is dian-ietrically opposed Lo each other. Not only this,/- I -both sides are at a tan'ge'i'it on the facti,im of tfie pendency or otfierwisc of • I Mr.P.(C;yt743./:?.01.i,.5254/201:1:Si tonnecl.acima(:t.ers-" 24 of .J'Af .< . .i; Lhe interim' applications filed before the Supreme Court by bu aipplicants/vendorsand the respondent/NDMC,for clarifications,o ^' '.-the•aforesaid order carne to.- be "passed--as. it •is the stand, ol l.he i .resportdent/IMDMCthat the aforesaid applicati-dns were not disposed oi Vj.' ; while passing.theo.rcfer.dated15.7:20:tl. The parties,are,poles apart on f:'-- ' • • • the question^ofiniport of the status quo ofder; and the effect of the .observations' mad-e by/the Supren'ie Court irv the case ot ,Gc!ii),dci ^ P.amfsupra) as regards the approval of NDMC sch.eme. They ai'c also at I loggerheads ,on the composition of the acljudicatory mechanism .in tl'ie •• • IMID'MC juris.clictionand th'e manner of its functioning,.as also the,identil'.y of.tiie' scheme which is validly operating in the NI!DMC areas for regulai.iny . urban street'vending, wliich had all been subject matter of considei ation ' before .the Suprenle Court in the aforesaid'rase. The Otiior is,sues I agitated •by 'the parties-, starting from the interpretation of tl'ie varioi.rs i', observati,ons made'by.,tine Supreme Court in th'e aforesaid .'judg.i'ncMit,.fw' the forn-!Ul;a,tipnof ti'ie sfeheme as approved by the'Supi'en'ie'Cpurl, in l,he .| case of Sudhir I'^adan (supra), to ti'ie composition of tliq disputes j " . • ' ' • * ' ! redresscil mechanism and its validity as also L-iie. meariing of tfie stalus ,J quo order, are all in a Turmoil as both tlie parties ,i'iave stoutly.del'ended I •. their respective-stands which are con'ipletely at'variance witi') ea'Ch other. The on.ly ,common groui-)d shared by the parties .is tl'ie factum ol" pas.;-.inq. '•j .of the. recent judgment dated

08.10.20;tU in ti'ie case of Gguida. J' '.RamCsypriO'andthe subsequent status quo order dated i:i7.20,10 passed . . W.P.(C)^743/20X1, 5254/2blx'R. connected niaCter^ 'A Page. 2.f'i'trm by tl'ie.Supi'eme CoLirt. ' . . ' I •. '' • ' . ' ' ' • • • ' .29. The. fountainheacl'oP .the dispute in the present cases l.l.iei-elure ren-iains.the -status QUO order dated';L5.7.20J.;[;'passed byUie Sn|)rcnie Court. The'.issuewhich, is sought to live agitated beroie this L.t.uirl. i<^; ili.il having regard to the status quo order, whethera stay order'u.uqlil.to be^ .• •granted by iihis Court in favour oP the petitioners/vendorsas [irayed loi by •them, irrespective.' oP their legal status,;•"..thus Portiiddiiu;]- Ibe-respondentZ'NDMC.Pronn' threatening and/or irern,oving theni PidMi iJje '• diPferent.si'tes'occupied by therri in the NDMC areas:, lii other word.s, thi.s • Court is-being called upon to examine tiie nieanjng, scope ancJ elPecl oP .the' status quo. order elated ;l.5.07.20;l.;t: On the question oP^how to ascertain', the-implication oP a status qu.- order passed by a (.:oui;l, in Ihe ca.se oP Messrs Bharat Coking Coal .Lin-iiLo'J fsupra-;); it was observed l.iy .the SupreiTie Court that the expression, 'sta'us quo'is Lindoubtei.lly a.lenn oP • ambiguity and at times, gives rise to doubt and'clirPi.cull.y and in ca.se any party ha,s'"any doubt on -tl-ie ri'ieaning and ePPect oP the -rilal.u.s (|ui.) oiTder, the .proi^er course'Por such a parb^' would..i:fe to approach the rouiP. that had.passedthe statusquo order, to see.lk.cla'riPicatioi'is. ! 30,,. ri-i Jd'ie case at Piand, while seeking io ride tPie wave oP Uie aPornfiniil: status -quo order, parbes have cho,^en to ov'erl(;iol< one-impi)rianl Pactor,, which is that a status quo order operates oii bol.li siiif:.'-.. "I In,; • Supreme Court has passed orders requiring both sides to maintn,ii.i .stalu.s. '•W.p.(CJ:47'i3/2ail/5254/2d:I.X a. connected lustters'' ' e-'aye'.'/•G Or 2Sf • quQ. .Oi;ice such-,.a.n order of the Suprenie Court is'on record, l.hc sa.lne, ' not. only binds all the parties' to tlie adjudication,and all -the pai-tie.s, civil or judicial'-whoare required to act in. accordance'with-the said onJoi'"-;, bul-i.t equally binds the High Court rroin inteVfeiihg vA/itli such an oi;dei, rir; the said orden-has been passed in Jitigatrons bei'ore the highest Ljjuit of-the land. ' '• . '31. The orders.of the',Supreme Court'are on record. Tlte stains ([uo • i. • . ' . prder iS' a, clear signal to the Higti'Court a^s well,-to avoid grantiny any . order, including an interim oi'der, whe-n the Su.pHerne Colirl: has (Jii eel cc.l.. for status quo to be maintained. .In such cii'cunisfances, if ttiis Couii: yvas ; to gi-anf a-'Stay order .in. Pavour of the petitioners/vendbrs ar'raytrM l l)ePui in it, ^t wouJci be tantamo.untto negating the orders oP'the Si.ii'.irernc:('ouit,' -which require the parties to maintain status quo pending-enactmei;il: oP appi"opriate legislation. IP either of the parties .were un.cleai' fiIi(.viiI. the int6:ipi etatibn ,oP the-.status quo order, it was Por,th.em to have a'pplir.d to I.hi?, oupieliie Court For" clariPications thereqP. Additionally, tlie relian(.:e ' placed by the petitiohers/vendorson . the Special ProvisionsM;r seeking •inirerin-i legal sanctity to the placement oP goods by tlieni.. on the V paven-ients> by terming ' it as, encroachn-ient/unauthorizetl as ^ Iecogni7.ed;;;underthe said Act and their contention that tire .Supp-.c:r)ie Court had-recognized:the Pact that the'SpecialProvisionsAct is.t.Ue only: • Cenlrar:|^,w-|iavingprirriacyover other'Statutis/arealso matters.that the [. - ' petitioners/vendors ought to liave piciced before the SLipreiDe Coiul vv/hilr-; seeking clarifications oT the status quo order. It would' theretdre l,),e advisable for petitioners/vendoi's as also res|:)ondent/Nr'M(;: to approach bhe S.uprerne Court and rnak'.e their submissions (here as regards their grievances, l-lowever, as both pai-ties insisted" IJinl Ihtiii-argurnerits be taken note of and their submissions be |:)laced •oi i rrM.cji ci, • some pains liave been taken to do the needful.

¶32[n view of tfie afoi'esaici facts and cir(~,i.imstances,tiiis Courl is nf tlu-i opinion that it will not, be appropriate for it to g.rajitstay ordeis in llji-: faco' ol the status quo order dated •15.07.20.1,1 passed' by tlie Supren le:onrl. It is reiterated that any such ord'er si'iall be an anti-tl'iesis to the oidors ol .the Supienie Court, wlnicl'i must be respected both, in lel.ter'and spirit. I.n such circumstances,the present petitions are disposed of by d(M.lining • grant of any interim orders to the petitiori-ers. However, liberty is giTinted. to both the^partiesto apply to the Supreme Courtlor a clarification,;f the 5talus-;qyo order dated 15.07.2011 passed in. the case of Gainda Kani .Csy.l2r^.-• The-parties are left to bear their own costs. ' • ' •• ,()?.• •• • • ' ' 0CTG)Fl^,5.^i 20J1 W.P.<C1^743/2011,525^1/20118,. connecXe.d

t f IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 + W.P.fC^ 4347/2011. 4559/2011. 4593/2011. 4610/2011. 4650/2011. 4651/2011. 4827/2011. 4923/2011. 5024/2011. 5028/2011. 4775/2011. 5247/2011. 5254/2011. 5255/2011. S257/2011- 5258/2011. 5261/2011. 5^62/2011. 5263/2011. 5264/2011. 5277/2011. 5292/2011. 5312/2011. 5317/2011. 5402/2011. 5403/2<011. 5405/2011. 5408/2011. 5410/2011. 5411/2011. 5413/2011, 5418/2011. 5423/2011. 5444/2011. 5473/2011. 5484/2011. 5485/2011. 5497/2011. ma tf 5498/2011. 5503/2011. 5504/2011. 5505/2011. 5506/2011. 5507/2011. 5508/2011. 5595/2011. 5614/2011. 5615/2011. 5616/2011. 5618/2011. 5627/2011. 5630/2011. 5631/2011. 5643/2011. 5645/2011. 5654/2011. 5656/2011. 5711/2011. 5717/2011. 5718/2011. 5728/2011, 5729/2011. 5731/2011. 5732/2011; 5737/2011. 5738/2011. 5739/2011. 5743/2011. 5761/2011. 5784/2011. 5785/2011. 5791/2011. 5794/2011. Jb Jki t 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. 6115/2011, 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. 4373/2Q11. 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. 5341/2011. 4S47/2011. 4859/2011. 4887/2011. 4990/2011. W.P.(C)4347/2011andconnectedmatters Page1 of8 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. -r r 5063/2011. 5089/2011, 5099/2011. 5114/2011. 5115/2011 5117/2011, 5129/2011. 5139/2011. 5144/2011. 6708/2011 6799/2011, 6824/2011. 6825/2011. 6826/2Q11. 6827/2011 6896/2011, 6901/2011. 6902/2011. 6903/2011. 6904/2011 6905/2011, 6906/2011. 6907/2011. 6908/2011. 690Q/2nil 6910/2011, 6917/2011. 6919/2011. 6920/?nil 6921/2011 6922/2011. 6932/2011 and 5420/2011. THE MATTERS OF MOHD. AZAD Petitionerin W.P.(C)4347/2011 MOHD. ALAM Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4559/2011 KIRPAL SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4593/2011 SHAILENDERKUi^AR Petitionerin W.P.(C)4610/2011 Petitioner in W.p.(e) 4650/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4651/2011 AMAR NATH SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4827/2011 ^ Petitionerin W.P.(C)4923/2011 DNUKAL blNGH Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5024/2011 SURENDERSINGH AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5028/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4775/2011 RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5247/2011 wfif Petitionerin W.P.rc) 5254/2011 VISHAMBARJHA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5255/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5257/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5258/2011 RAJESH CGUPTA AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5261/2011 Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5262/2011 ^Fn^DT Petitionersin W.P.(C)5263/2011 , Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5264/2011 ARUN KUMAR ALIAS LUCKY Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5277/2011 MOHD 7AHTn Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5292/2011 SHAKFFI AHMpn Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5312/2011 Namd kishorf Petitionerin W,P.(C) 5317/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5402/2011 ••••• Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5403/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5405/2011 rat!? RAO AND ORS Petitionersi