Mohd. Hasmat v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Ors

judgment. A. To give a brief background oP the dispute, learned counsel for llu^ respondent/MDMCwalked this Court through sorne prominent der.i.sion.';.oP l.tie Supreme Court rendered Pr'om time to time, whicPi relate to pavement i a: W.P\(C) S2S4/2011 conrnsclGd nisllers ''J' of >1 \ ) squatters/hawkers,sCarting rrom the decision in l:he case oP Sudan bmyh •VS:..,J\IDMC .8t.Oj:5.reportedas (1998) 2SCC 727, the interin,ordei'dated

03.03.2006 'passed tiy the Supreme Court in W,.IP..(i-) Hhy' entitled c",dhir Madan Ors. vs^MCD, tl'ie Pinal judgment in tlio .,:nr;e • c..,rlhir Marian fsupra) reported as (2009) -17 SCC 597 and.laslly, l.lm •judgment dated 08.10.2^010passed in the case ol^ Gaindaj:(ani,(.supin).

¶5I_earned counsel for the respondent/MDMCvehementlyopposed th,: prayer of the petitioners/vendorsTor grant of interim-ordersie,sliaining ti-ie respondent/NDiviCfrom removing them from tlie siles on.upied hy them till the enacti'nent of an appropriate legislation, in tei ms nl tin directions issued iDy the Supreme CoCirt in the. case ot bainda .Wxim .(.GU|2!-cil-She particularly.referred to the observations ma<.lo hy the Supreme Court in paras 40 and 4:1 of the judgmentin ttie case ol Sudan, Singh .(supra.)., which dealt with the immediate evicUon of unnulIn)i ized sqi.iatters/hawkersand laid emphasison the facttliatiii tlie said r,,.r'.e, ihe Supreme Court had directed removal of unauthorizedsquattcis/hawkei without awaiting final allotmentof sites to be allotted to eligiblednimanls at tlie places recommended by the Thareja Committee or sugqesled by the IMDMC. 6-Again, in' the interim order dated 03.03.2006 passed i Nadan's case fsuura), the following observation niade by the Court was highlighted by the counsel for the respondent/NDMC.: • Sudliii " (C) 4743/2011^ 5254/2011 ft connect:eLl mailers Ffjge 5 trC 2S! .! ' • ^ • ^ : I a i ,V , '.1 "While we. . undertake this exercise, vve direct the. • Authorities to see to it tliat those persons, who. nie :• carrying on hawking activities or who are sc|ual:tihg on , public land without any authority, even in accordance •with the present day schenie in force, are removed foi'd-iwith. This includes unauthorized hawking, . squatting on public streets, Footpaths and public pai k.s, ' 'iinciudihgplayground.We direct the Delhi Adrnihi.5tration • to take steps imn-iediatelyin'Collaboratidnwitli ' 'nDMC-with hecessary assistance froln Delhi I'olice to cleai-the roads, streets, Todtpaths, parks etc:, by . unauthorized occtipahts/squatters/hawkers."

¶7As to the judgnTeht dated' 17.05.2007 |-endered in the case ol r' SydhirMaclaillsiJiJraLhiuch emphasis was laid by'the counsel for the respondent/NDMC on paras 28 to 30 and 35, which arc iein'oducoi^ herelnbeldw Pot ready reference "28: The Mew Delhi: Municipal Committee has also , . sLibiTiittedits'Scheiiie. We have considered the Scheme ' ' • stibmitted before us. h'he area which falls under MDMl. does not create problems such as those in tl'ie area;, under MCD. However, in the said Scheme reference lias been made to pei'sons who do not have permission Under Section 225 or licence under,Section .330 of tiie • . • MDMC Act, 1994 but who are unauthorisedly conUnuing to carry oh business as liawkers/street vendors. Ihey have been described as those who are "tolerated" in the ,NDMC .area. We faif to understand why any person who violates the law should be tolerated; ifittier they sliould be-compelled to obey ttie law'or the iaw may be sLill.ably aiTiended, if it "is found to create undue hardship. Ihe .problems need to be addressed by the legislatui'e or the rUleiTiakihg authority. We, therefore, observe l.fiat il' 11 is felt that the persons wfio fall in tl'iis category lequire special protectioi'i, ttie /Act may be suitably an'iended to ' cover their cases or else ,the nuniber of sUch illegal squatters n'lay increase from timie to tilTie. W.P.j^CJ 4T43/2in.t, 5254/2011 fk cosinscl:ed mailers Page 6 of • i I J M. 2,9: There has been no serious objecLion 1:0 i;lie bchenie submitted by NDMC which is a cornprebehsive scheme. •Certain directions have, however, been sought Por Pioin this CoLM't. We approve the Scheme submitted, by IMDMC.' . ' , .

¶30It is submitted bePore us that the Schemes which have been approved by this Court must be subject to any /-\ct or rules that may be Prarned iii consonance\A/il.li the IMational Policy oh Urban Street Vendors. .I.t goes without sayihg that we have approved the Schenies as 'Prarned by MCD and IMDMC. IP the legislature intei'venes and' frames anotlier schen-ie or regulations governing such Schenies, that will certainly supersede tPio. ' Schemes prepared by MCD and NDMC. It is well settled that ahy administi'ativeaction is always subject to law that may be framed by the competent legislature: 3'5. Subject'to the aforesaid rnodiPications/cliangesin the Schenies submitted -by MCD and I\IDMC, tPie sanie are approved. The said authorities shall now take appropriatesteps to implement the. Schen'ie Porthwith. In case oP any diPPiCulty Paced by them in irnplemeiiting the schemes, they shall have the liberty to apply to, this Court."

¶8Lastly; in the i-ecei'itjudgiTientin tlie case oP GalrtdaJimxi .(sup,i_a,), learned counsel for the respondent/MDMC speciPlcally relied'uiJon paia;-, i-30, 32, 50 to 66-to state that the Supreme Couit was conscious oP the fact that ,a structured regulation and legislatioh is urgently rcguiicd l.o control and i-^egulate the fundamental right of hawking. Slie alsn |;iointpd out that the three tier disputes redressal mechani.shi set out in the aPPidavit Piled by the then Chairpersoii •o,P tPie NDMC was taken, iiol.e ol by the Supreme Coui't in para 72 oPthe aforesaid jtidgmeht ai-id in pni a /'', il was then observed as below l/l/.P.{C) 4743/20.11, 5254/2011 ® connected maUers Fuge 7 o( .'Zff ix-ii -5 i •| ! "73. In paragraph 12 of the'aPPidavitit has l:men stated that there shall be an /Appellate /Authority which sliall attend to the redressal oP grievances oP squal.tei hawkers, traders, residents or any other person by hearihg appeals against the decision pP the Vending Committee(Main). I^aragraph 12 oP tPiat aPPidavit rs sot OLit below:- There shall be an Appellate•Authority. On the Porwcirding oP petitions received by the Chaii-pei-son, this /Mithority shall attend lo redressai oP grievances oP squatters, hawkeis,^ ti'aders, residents or any dther persuii. I i'- •/Authority'shall also hear appeals against Ihe decision oP Vending Comrhittee (Main). Decision.^ oP this /Authorityunless challehgedbePoie a Mighei' Forum or in any CompetentCourt, sliall be linal. .This Authority shall be initially headed by a person appointed by the Chairperson having at least ;l 0 . , years legal or judicial'background. There can lie m,ote than one men'ibei' in tliis Authority.'

¶9. /APter i-iiaking the aforesaid observations,in paras 74 to /(;. oP l.lie judgment,i:he Stipi-erneCourt went on to obsei'veas below-;- "74. .tn the said aPPidavit, wliicli was aPPirrned bePoie this Court on 24^'' August, 2010 it has been stated that IXilDMC shall comply with the orders which wotild be passed iijy the acljudicatorymechanisnicontemplatfydin the scheme and which has been approved by this Couit for thfe .NiDMC area, unless such orders are. inade subject h-iatter oP challenge bePore a •higher Porurn or in any , other coimpetent Court.

¶75In view OP sUch schemes; tPie hawkels, squatteis and vendors must abide by the Dispute l-iedressal scheme mentioned above. There should not be any ' dil'ect approach to this Court by way oP Presh petition Cjr IA\s, bypassing the LOispute l-{edressal MIeclianisni provided in the scheme. W.P.('C} '^•743/2011, 5254/20X1 ffi connsctecS matters Pnge O irf 2.8 li . I 1[ ' li . 'ii ' ' 7(5. HoAA/evei-, before June, -ZOil, the approiJrmte Government Ls to enact a law on the basis oT tli(-;i l;>ili mentioned above, or oh the basis oP any amendment _ th^i-eoP so that the hawl<ers iriay preGisely Icnow tlie • Gontoui-s of tlleir-rights."

¶10K was thus-sought to be contended oh beiiair-ul U)0! respondent/Nl^l^'lC,that there can,be no vacuum as far as I'eguUitinii ul trade of sti-eefhaWl^ei-s/vendorsin the IMDMC jurisdictionis concerne..!and the failure Din the part of the legislatureto abide by the timeline Sf::t (juI. by the Supreme Court in the case of Gainda P-.aiTL(sLipra).,by putling in place a statute on or'before 30.06.2011, cannot be interpreted by tiie petitioners/Vehdoi-S to mean that they can contiriue tiieir tiadco unhindered -at any place of their choice in the NDMC jiirisdiclion,in an unregulated riianher and without any obstruction or objection Iiom thi.^ • IMDIMC. • •

¶11Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMCpaiticularly referred lo paras 74 incl 75 of ti'ie aforesaid judgment to state that tfie dis|:)Ute redressal scheine, noticed by the Supreme Court in pai'a 71:> was l.he one that was legally functioning in 1\IDIV|C jurisdiction ahd whicli was taken •note of by the Coui-'t in the preceding para 74. In otfier words, slie stated, that the stheme as set out in the affidavit dated 24.00.2010, filed by the then Chairpei'son of MDI^IC before the Supreme Court in Gaijida jlain's case ..(supra)., was the one wliich Was finally approved by the Supi r.!me Court. She fUrtlier submitted that assuming, without admitting, that the V\/'.P.(C}4~43/.7:bll^S254/201i a^connecf.edniaV.tsrs P'agii 9 '.p/' , .1 A dispute redressalscheme set out i^y the NDMC had lapsed on .-in.h.y.O1,1, as claimed by the petitioners,then the NDMC Act provides an adequate tailback to ensure orderly management oP vendors in the area. rePerencewas made in this regard to the provisionscontained m;-..cclion;; 221, 224, 225 and ,226 oP the said Act.

¶12It was Purtherargued by the counsel Por the re5pondent/i\M.)M( Ih.tt the applicationPiled by the NDMC bePore the Supreme Court in ,luly 201I praying inter alia Por extension oP time to regulate hawkers/s-|uati.eis in the NDMC area, as per the scheme mentioned in the judgmentmGaiiuJa Ram's case (supral, till the enactmentoP a law by the legislaturem lhat regard, had not yet been Pinally disposed oP by the Supreme Couit at the time oP passing of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011 and similarly, the other application Piled by one oP the hawkers/vendorspraying inlr.i alia Por restraining the respondent/NDMCProm granting Teliljnzarirights to thc: winners oP the'lucky draw oP lots Por allotment, which W(j,.. to hi. held on

12.05.2011; or any date thereaPter, was also prMK.Iing consideration bePore the Supreme Court. Hence, no linality couk.l hi., attached to the order dated 15.7.2011 which can only be consideied an interim measure'till tlie Pinal disposal oP the aPoresaid applications m the enactment of a legislation.

¶13On merits, learned, counsel Por the respondei'it/NDMC relei ioii to the aPPidavit dated

01.08.2011 Piled by the Director (EnPorcement), Nl.iMC, W/.P.(C) •<1743/201J., 5254/2011 ft connected /nailers Page. Xtt itf .711 ;i'" • • i

1.lJ . • ^ wherein it was sliBted that pursuant to the public notice issued l.)y IMDl'^'IC iiiviting applications under the NDI^IC Uiban otiet..L Vf.ndin.i Scheme in the year 2007, the respondent/WDMC had received 436/ applicatioiis.The documents required by the applicants Tor registration •under the ^Scheme included a proof of age, documentary p,;oof/nfndavit for the purpose of'aniUialincome, proof of resideince,proof msnpix.nt nl special categorieslike handicapped,Kashmiii iriigrantsetc. nnd pi oof ul squatting iii the NIDMC area, if any. In para 4 of the aforesaid allninvit, the foliowing criteria approved/adoptedby the V,ending Conimilteo to shortlist the eligible applicants is set out:-"4. That the criteria approved/adoptedby the Vending Committee to shortlist the eligible applicants is us • • Lihdei':-

(i) The applicants should be resident of Delhi, witli his name registered in electoral rolls as per abstract nl photo E-Roli or ERO ceiTificate. . • (ii)'The applicantshould be a ma.lor, viz. witli over ,1.". years' of age as per valid birth certificate or age certificate or school certificate etc.

(iii) The applicant should be a needy as per iiu.c i'-ecords of DC (Revenue) or as vulherabilityrecords of Government of MCT of Delhi. (Samajik Suvidha Sangam: .vulnerable and most vulnerable category).

(iv) The' applicant should be registei'ed as per l\l.DMi. Street Vendors Scheme. The policy verification of l.lie applicant should be available.

(v) The applicant or his dependent fairiily rneinbci should not be .employed or should not have any other tehbazari/yehding or any other business pi"en'iises in Delhi as per recoi'd verification of NDMC/MCD. V\r.P.(C) 4743/201 5254/2011 & connecf.sd matters Paue J1 in' i! • ; s i! ;•

(vi) Preference will be. given to applicants wlio-i;.iie pliyskally hanclicappecl'or widows or,senior ciUzens above 60 years •or. Kasl-iiriiri migrants or oL/o i (necessary certificate to be submitted and relaxatio'n may be given in the above criteria)." s I I I .;L4. As per. the respondent/ND|v|C,the cal:e:gory-wise list oP eligible shortlisted applicants in terms of the aforesaid cilteri-a totalled to 3^71^ applicants. The affidavit dated 01:08.2011 states thnt thu respondent/MDMChas identiPied 183, new spaces, in addition to the .?.0..i remainingspaces identiPiedby the Thareja Committeein the Nt^MC area, •which wei-e' available-foi' allotment, lihus taking the total nurnbei uP availablespaces to 386. -Il: was furtherstated that due to Pactors like de-listing oP the Parliament.Street on security grounds, consl;ructii.)n o( Plyovers and" Metro Stationsat various locationsin the NDML. jurisdiction, the number of authorized.te/'i/jszansguatters has changed Pi om ..'I" to 404 in number. The number of applicants, who the respondent/l\n.)M(.. claims, are vending unauthoiisedlyat Connaught Place, Sarojini Magnr, Parliament Street and Janpath areas and in whose. Pavour, .s/d//./.s quo ••• orders are operating.,is stated to be-323 in number. The aPPidavitasserts that simpiydsedausethe names oP the petitioners,who are registeredwilh •the MDP^C, Pi.gure ih the eligibility list drawn by tlie respondent/l\M,)M(,., cannot be treated as proof oP their regLilarly vending in the NI..)M(.,. ar'ea . and nor does it conPer oh them any enforceable vested Ught to errsui e a vending space for thern in the NDMC area, which is directly dependantrin W.P.(C) 47A3/2011, 5254/2011 & connecl.eti rnaLters \ Frige J..2 .''.'if.' 1 ' >' • :l. y, ;l •• : ii, -j ; i ' ;i • '•{ • .1 • •1 . ,iS ii 'i vj j! ^ Hi , > the number of spaces available. Thus, it was contended that neilhc.r the-.; possessionof any number of chaiians, nor the alDsence thereof can ninkd a diffei-ence:,for the reason that chaiians cannot form the basis Inr tho petitionersto claim ahy vested legal right to squat at a given spcic.e.

15.. Counsel for the i-e5|i)ondent/l\IDMC asserted that the i-resent petil:ioris are' not imaintainable inasmuch as the' petitioners have an equally efficacious alternate ' remedy of approaching tlie a|i|)cllate. authority constituted'by the Chairperson, IMDMC, for redressal ol Iheii grievances and failure, on their part to have approached tlie Vendiiu,| Cbmrriitteeis hot dn accountof the fact tliat tl'ie said CorrnnitteeiniJuiJiiuj the appellateauthorityis not functioning, but because they fiave (ound it more corlveiilentto bypass the aforesaid foruln and approacli this l.ouil: dii-ectly, which is not permissible. She stated that extensive measurcv.:; have b'een taken by the i'espondeht/l\iblv|Cto. constitute tfie adjui.lic.nl.oiy ''ivnectian'isi-nby way of a three tier system in the following rnaniier:-

¶1Vending Sub-Comi'nittee (Site of Spaces),

¶2' Vending Sub-Cominittee (Heath ahd Hygiene)

¶3Vending Sub-Committee (Enforcen'ient).

¶16She' stated that the ci'eation of the afoi'esaid thi'ee Vending Sul.v Comrnitteesi, Vending Committee (I'^'l.ain),as alsO of tfte ap|;:)eilate aiithoiily vvh-icfi WBS •constituted to redress the grievance.? of tlie si|uol.t(!r.';, hawkers,• tradei's, residents or any othei' person agaiiist the dccif'iiim of W-P-CCJ 4743/2011^ 52S4/2d:il » connected maiXers ' Page. 13 of 2!) ; Ii -i !• .. / i 1,!• i. !• the Vending Committee(l^ciih), was placed beroie the oupieine considerationarid the said three tier adjudicatory niechdiiism Wc.i.., diilv approved in the judgn-ientof ^incia f^larn C5Ui;ji:aJ_-

¶17Pel^' coiltra/ leai-ned counsels for .the peldtioners/vendors,who appeared on ditrereht dates; yehemently opposed the aPoresnid stand •taken by the respondeht/l\iL")I^G.and asserted_that the scltenic. rioutod hy tiTe respondent/NDMC.forj'egulatingvending activities in its junsdiction^ had lapsed dh 30,06.2011in the absenceof the enaGtnnentoP a legislation^ cis per'di'reGtiohsof the SupremeCourt in the case oP GMllda Kain..(supral 'and as on date, there is no'schemein existence. It was canvasseiJl.tiol the-impiicatioi-i of the aforesaid ordet oP staCus quo passed P)y the SupremeCourt oh 15•07.2011 can only..meanthat-irrespectiveoP l;hc lact .'whether the 'squatting ,is legal or illegal, the same be permitted l.o continue on. ah 'as is where is" basis, snd su'di 'status quo is to he •maintained by all. the parties till a,law is Prarneci by. tPie legislature. IS. Mr.

13..B:. Sawhhey, Sr. Advocate appearing Poi' Ihe. •petitioners/vendbrsubinittedthat in the case oP GMildjlJiaJlLCsyrJia '-ho 'Supreme Cpul't had directed that tPie. appropriate govei-nment must eiiacl a law on or ioePoi-e 30.06.2011 so that the hawi<ers itiay pr-ecise..ly k'now the cohtours -Qp theli" rights, tience the dispute redressal mec:hnni;'.;m provided Poi" in the scl'i.erne mentioned in ti'ie aforesaid judgment could operate only upto 30.06.2011 and thereafter, the said sche.ine would _W.P-(C) 4743/20.11, 5254/2011 fft connecl.ed nwaers Fage 14 of' •• • II) s ir.:; automaticaliystand lapsed. He stated that-no other Interpretationcan l.« given to the orderdated 15.07.2011,directingmaintenanceoP duo, in view or the c|Lialiryingi/vords,"as it is obtainingtoday". I'ie argued thnt If the schehle was Continuing to operate, aS' claimed by the Ir.ainciJ counsel fol-the respOhdent/IMDMC,then there was no good rea,son for tho respondent/MDMCto have reh-aine'd Prom holding a, diaw uP luL>, wlmJi was.slatedfor the same day. I.e., 15.07.2011,and that feet uP the n,alter 'is that even the respondent/MDMChad undei'stood the sLaLus quo ordoi' to mean that there is no scheme,in.place aPter 30.6.2011, Poi l.ho ic..i..on that in pai-a 68 .of the 'aPOreSaid judgmient in the case oP Gamda^KlHII £sugjj3^ all the wl-it petitionsand the interim applicationsPiled bePoie the SupremeCoui't were disposed oP with clear and speciPicdirectioiKslhat l.he problem oP hawking ,and street,vending could be regulated by thc^ •-schemes Pramed-by the MDMC atid MCD only upto 3,0.06.20:11 and not thereaPter. It was asserted on behalP oP the petitloners/vendoisl.hdl. n.', on date, the directions oP the Supreme Court that sCciCus qui> is lo be iTiaintaihed'bythe parties can only be given orfe interpretation,vA/hich that till a law is ultimatelyenacted by the Parllai-nent,iri-e,?pectiyenP Ihriii • legaP status, all the petitioners/vendoi's would be permitted l.u cu squatting/hawkiiig at.the sites that have been occupied by tl)em. ;1.9. InsoPar as the composition oP the dis|;iute redressal meclinni; concerned, learned Seinior Advocate Por the petitioners subniii te,(.l contrary to the understanding op the respondent/MDMC, Ihe srlie W.P.CC) 4743/263.I, 5254/2011 a coimecCed njaCters PBge. :l5 vf .7ft f" •' \ }• I ' 'I • ;l -• A V. J I i I reproducedat paras 72 and 73 in the judgmentin the case ot CQHida liani (supra), Was not the one which was aGtlially recognized by the .Su|.)rcine Court, and i-^atherit is the dispute redressalschei'riementioned in para 7b or the aforesaidjudgrhehti.e., '"a scheme for urban street vendois loi., IMDI^'IC area as formulated in the year .2006, which was ull inlately apiDroved by the Supreme'Courton 17.05.2007, in the case of Sudliir [vjadan (supra),, which is the scheme w|-iich Pinds mention speciPicnIly in the following para 74 and is the one approved by the Suprei'neC.oliit. U, was contendedthat even otherwise,the National CapitalTerritoryoP Uelhi Laws (SpeciarProvisions)Act, 2011 (hereihaftel*refeired to as 'Special FroiviisiioiiiisAclf) coines to the rescue oP the petitioners Per the r-cri,son that sub-clause (2) oP. Section 3 oP the Special l-"'|-ovision5Act n'lcindatns ' maintenance oP status quo as on 01.01.2006, notwithstanding any judgment,'decree or ordei" of any court, in respect of encroachmentor unautPioi-ized development. Tlius, it was subitiitted on behalP ol Hie petitioners/vendors that they vuere entitled to grant oP inteiim I'.irolcclion till the enactn-ient of a legislation to regulate hawldng/vending activilies in urban streets in Delhi'on the basis of the National P-'^olicy oii UrI.iari .SI.reel. Vendoi's, 2009 framed on 17.06.2009 and the Special Provisions Act,.

¶20Vl/ith |-efei^e.nce to tPie Special Provisions Act, • learned .Vionioi /Advocate foi" the petitioners stated that the phi'ase, "unauthorised developilnent" 'used in the definition clause has to be seen in Ihe san'ie context as tlie one in which the phrase ''encroachirient" has been dePined, W.P,[C) ^7d3/2011, 525-^/20X1 connected /naff/e/'s J.O of 7M ! r>'; (i">! •is !• ... ,!• wherelil-Tt'ismentionedthat putting up of tei-nporarV,semi-temporaryor permanentsti'UctUre for residential use or commercial use or any otiicr use, 5ind the'placementof goods on the pavements by the petitionersis liable to be terhled as unauthorizeduse for maintainiiigstatus quo uridoi the Special Pi'ovisionsAct.' iviuch emphasis was laid on tlie avermcnl.s made by•the respondent/IMDMCin its interim application filed bcluie tho SupremeCourt in (1ainda.Flam's caseimQJiaJ.ih July 2U1.1., to .yuLimil. I.I1...1I. the respondent/IMDlviCitself liad stated in the said application that IJie scheme'i'lad lapsed and thei^efOre, the only interpretationthat can be given to l:he stal-us 'quo order passed by the Supreme Lourt on •15.07.20:1.1 can be that no schenie would exist after ::iO.U(.i.2(.)J.1 lUul 'thus, the ijehefitof the Special Pi-QvisionsAct ought to be extended to tho petitioners. He submitted that the phi-ase ^street vendors' hri,s been cleai'ly defined under the Nabonai Policy on Urban Street Vendois, Reliance was placed in the case Of Patli Vyapar 1^1Eilld-al-.P-glllj.(i>Q.^I.'v!•) V-'• MC.D Town',, H.ail 81-Oi'S. reported as (2009) 12 SCC 475) niid l.lu! provisions.ofthe Special ProvisionsAct to submit that even tfie Su|.)ioino. Court had retoghized the fact iihat the Special ProvisionsAct i;.'; tl)R only ••Central la,w gbveiming -the field and ii: would have priiTiacy ovgi nlher Statutes and administrative orders. It is thus stated that the prrjvi;vi(.)ns of the l\lbMC,/-\Gt cannot be invoked by the respondent/NIJMC: a.s tlio ••.•aid /Act is not in consonance with /Article 96 of tiie Constitutioii of Im.lia ;• furthermo,re, ' the Special Provisions /Act being valid the of W.P.(C) S254/2011 & conneUed msl:!:ers PHire :f 7 of il 'Sa !l 'Jx J . >1' I • I i M , i: I ,1 1 " ' I 'i . • ' , r pecernber'lOil, no orders'Inderogationof the provisionsof the s.:ml AU. can be .passed: . . Mr. S:K= Tripeithi, Advocate appearing Por some of Itiie petitionei^/vendorssought to embellish the submissionsof Mr.Sowhncy, Sr.'AclvoGabe and relied oh'the orders passed iri 144J/..'-Oil •entitled Mohd^lsmalLv^^ to urge that the "Api-nllate Authority" cohstrtuted Under the dispute reidressal mechanism lor the IMDMC area, has not been functioning,which Pact he stated is borne out iTom a perusal of the order dated 08.03.2011 passed in the nInresaUl case, wherein the Court took notice oP the claim of the petitionei/vomloi •' therein-tO the effect that insplte oP ordei's* passed by ttie Appellate Authority allowing squatting at a particularsite, bll a Pmai deteiminalion by the Vending Committeeas to-his eligibility;the responclent/NP)MCand the police wei-e 'disturbing his 'activities. In the aPoresakJ order, l.he statementa(^.the counsel Pdr the respondent/l\li3MCWas recorded to the ePPecl: that the a'ppellalieauthority,whose order was being relied upon by the petibonertherein,was constitutedInitiallyPor tPie MCD areas and later started PUnctiohlng.Portl've NDM.C areas as Well .Po-r the reason i;hat at thai tliTie, .there Was no separate-.appeilate autl-iority POr the l\il3ML areas, subsequently, in accOiTlance with the scheme approved by tPie Court, the Chairperson,. MDIHC had constituted a separate apfiellale authority Por -the IMDMC areas. •'I'herePore,- the apbellate authority appointed earlier had ceased to have jurisdiction qua the NDMC ai'pas. II W.P'.(C) 47'^3/5254/2011 Si cOnriecl-ed lUBtXers D-was U1US contended' on 'behalf of the petitioners/vendors'thai tho aroresaid'ordei-dearly indicatesthat the appellaiieauthorityin tl>e NI.)ML. areas is hot Functioning.

¶22Reliance was also placed on the n.inutes of the rneetiru, uf the Vending Committeedated l;L.03.2010>to claim that iP the fact of whethei _ there was actual squatting/vendingwas verified by the Committee-md il the names of the petitioners/vendorsfigured in tlie eligibilitylist i.)i ei.)r:i0(1 by the responclent/NDMCfoi" holdingthe draw of lots, then it did not lie m the mouti-i of the respondent/MDMCto claim that die petitioners,who h.jd ,been verified'and found to be eligible, were not entitled to s.|uat at various sites in the MDMC area after 30.06.20:1.1. • ' ,

¶23;i:n rebuttal, couhsel foi^ the respondent/NDMC disputed tho •contentions of the petitiohers/vendorsand while reiterating lier narlioi submissions, asserted that the petitioners did not liave any legally enforceable li.ght, created on the basis of tlie eligibility list drawn tiy MDMC, for claiming,grant of interiiTi orders in their havoui• ag.iin referred to pfafas 68, 69, 75, 76 and 78 of the Judgment in tfie case of Gainda Ram ,(supra), to emphasize that when the aforesaid paras are read collectively; it is clear that the petitioners cahnot claim an entitlement to any interim orders as sought by them in the i)ir;.sent • proceedings.• She further stated that even otherwise, Ihe .Special Provisions Act relied upon by tite petitioners' has duly recogni'zed I,he W.P.(C) 4-743/20.11, 5234/2UX1 & cannecf.e'./'inaCCers Faice ;t,y of 2^1 l| • " I ,1 / 1'3 ; I .. V; J !• .. 1- , \ I:.'' • , I ; • I schemes,prepared by the loccil authorities in the National Capital Iciiiloiy ot Delhi l^or regulation of Lirban street vendors. To substantiate the .sai(j submission, she drew the attention of'this Court to the preartible oP the aroresaid Act, which mentions the fact that all the schenies prepared hy the local authorities in the National Capital Territory uP Uellii, lor .regulationof urban street vendors in accordancewitti tlie Notional I'olii.y on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 and the Master Plan Por Dell'ii I, have been implemented and Purther that rapre time is required tor proper iiTiplementa-tion oP the schemes regarding hawkets and urban streel vendoi's..

¶24A spedPic rePerence was made by the learned counsel Pui-ttie respondent/NDMCto Secdon 2(l)(c) of the Special ProvisionsAct, which defines the phrase "end'oachment"to claim that it does nut covei .the pedtionershei'ein., who are squatters. FurtherrePefence \/vas made to tlu.: provision of Sectioh-3 of the Special ProvisionsAct, wliich contains a n obstante clause, to state that status quo with regard i:o tlie encroacP • or unauthqi'ized development as on 01.01.2006, nieJ'itioned•lu the .said provision, was in . the context oP the dePinitioh oP the. |.ihi a.si.:'..'. "encrocichmeht" and "Unauthorized development" set out in the dclinitiwn clause at Sections 2(l)(c) and 2Cl)(i) respectively of Itie .Srierial Pr'ovisions /Act and thus, the p.etitioners/vendors did not quality under tPir; aforesaid enactment foi" claiming pi-otection as hone oP the ingi edients sol out in the provisions of the aforesaid enactment are Polind to exist ii iiV-P.CCJ 474-3/201.1, 52S4/2011 ffi connected/ maiters l-'nge. 2(f of 2n

•A •> 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. 4923/2Q11- 5024/2011 5028/2011. 4775/2011. 5247/2011. 5254/2011. 5255/2011 5257/2011. 5258/2011, 5261/2011. 5-262/2011. 5263/2011 5264/2011. 5277/2011. 5292/2011. 5312/2011. 5317/2011 5402/2011. 5403/2011. 5405/2011. 5408/2011. 5410/2011. 5411/2011. 5413/2011. 5418/2011. 5423/2011. 5444/2011. 5473/2011. 5484/2011. 5485/2011. 5497/2011. 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. 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. W mm dk f 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. 43S5/2011. 4366/2011. 4367/2011. 4368/2011. m • M MM Mav V 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. -439872011. 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. 4847/2011. 4859/2011. 4887/2011. 4990/2011. W.P.(C}4347/2011 and connectedmatters 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. v^. > 5089/2011. 5099/2011. 5114/2011. 5115/2011 5117/2011, 5129/2011. 5139/2011. 5144/2011. r7o8^2oT^. 6824/2011, 6825/2011. 6826/2011. 6827/2011. ' 6901/2011. 6902/2011. 6903/2011. 6904/7nil, 6905/2011, 6906/2011. 6907/2011. 6908/2011. 6909/2011. 6910/2011, 6917/2011. 6919/2011 RQ-yn/onii 6921/2011 6922/2011. 6932/2011 and 5420/2011. ' THE MATTERS QF MOHD. AZAD Petitionerin W.P.(C)4347/2011 MOHD. ALAM Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4559/2011 KIRPAL SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4593/2011 SHAILENDERKUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C)4610/2011 SANJAY Petitionerin 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 KUI^ARAND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5247/2011 RAM 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 LAKHPATIAND 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 KUMAR ALIAS LUCKY Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5277/2011 MITHU LAL Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5292/2011 MOHD. ZAHID Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5312/2011 SHAKEELAHMED Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5317/2011 NAND KISHORE Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5402/2011 RINKU KUMAR GUPTA PetitionerIn W.P.(C) 5403/