Rajender v. Ndmc and Anr

judgment. A. To give a brief background of the dispute, learned counsel roi lhc. respondent/NDMCwalked this Court through sorne prorninentdec-isionr.ol l.l-ie SupremeCourt rendered from tin'ie to time, which relate to pnvtiii.iciil ^743/2011r S:iS-4/2011 ik connecied niBllers . .) squatters/hawkers,starting rrom the decision in the case ot bodqn;.Wulyli VS..NDMCAQjx. reported as (1998) 2SCC 727, the interim nrdcr dated

03.03.2006 -passed by the .Supren'ie .Court in VW..P..(i.') .lt((.iy'J/-I' entitled c.,,Hhir Madan Ors. vs. the Final judgment in the i.nso nl 5i_idhir Madan (slipral reported as (2009) 17 SCi-and .la..Ily, tin. judgmentdated 08.10.2010passed in the case ol= Gainda.Rnn)(supia).

¶5Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMCvehemenUyop|).,..';nd thn prayer of the petitioners/vendorsfor grant of interim orders ,e:';!iaininq the respondent/NDIviCfrom removing ttien'i IVom tlie sites o(.:<.upied by them till the enactment of an approprialie legislation, in tei m.^ nl tlu direcdons issued by the Supreme Court in the. case ot Gainda .Kain She particularly..referred to the observations ma,.le by the Supreme Court in,paras 40 and 43 of the judgmentin the of Sudan Sijigh .Lsu|?raJ, which dealt with the immediate eviction ot i.inanllK.ii/od squatters/hawkersand laid emphasison the fact that in the said Ihn Supreme Courf had directed removal of unauthorizedsquattci.-./li'iwJu.i without awaiting final allotmentoP sites to be allotted to eliqil.ilc(Jaimaiil.. at the places recommended by tfie 1hareja Committee oi .sui-fq}--'h..dby the NIDMC.

¶6Again, in' the interim order dated 03.03.2006 passed m L.udhii Madan;s case (supra), the following observation made by du:.-, .Mipiemn Court was highlightedby the counsel for the respondent/Ml,- •' (C) 5'254/'2011 ffi cannecCed runlXers raige .'f 'ff JJt f _/ "While we undertake this exfercise, we diiect Ihi.. • ALithorilies to see to it that those persons, wlo ciil carrying on hawking activities or who are sc|iiatLiny oii public land without any authority, even in accoic .. with the present day scheme ir) force, are reniovru forthwith This includes unauthorized tiawking, squatting on public streets, footpaths and public |;.a.ks includingplayground.We direct the Delhi to take steps innrnediatelyin collaboration^with ^"1 IMDMC with necessary assistance from Uell.ii • clear the roads, streets, footpaths, paN<s eitc.. jy LInaLItfiorized occupantsjsc|ua11ers/I'lawkers.

¶7As to the judgment dated 17.05.2007 rendered in the rnse of Sudhil\.MiGlcinX5J-112rc!Lmuch emphasis was laid by the coun,.cl foi Ih respondent/MDMC on paras 28 to 30 and 35, which are ieinodui.i.d I'lereinbelow for ready lefeience.- "28 The New Delhi Municipal Coinniittee has nl.si.) submitted its Scheme. We have considered ttie submitted before us. The area which falls undei HI-_- does not create problems such as those in J Ui-ider MCD. However, in tfie said Scheme refeicncc Ii.K' been made to persons who do not have under Section 225 or licence under Section 330 of .hf-i NDMC Act, 1994 but who are unauthoi'isedlyLOntinuiiu.| to carry on business as havv/kers/streetvendors.^^1hfiy have been describedas those who are "tolerated"in the .NDMC area.' We fail' to understand why any person who violates the law should be tolerated. Either they,.sliould be coiripelledto obey the law or the law may be suitnl.)ly aiTiended, if it is found to create uridue fiardsliip. Ihn problems need to be addressed by the legislatureur I.Ik;; ruleiTial<in'gauthority. We, therefore,. observe lhat il il • is felt tl'iat the persons wfio fall in ttiis category lequirc. special protection,the Act may be suitably aniended t() cover their cases or else the number of sucli squatters n'lay increase froiri time to time. mf.P.fC) 4743-/201%, 5254/2011 Sh connected millers Page, d "f 2H •

¶29There has been no serious objecLion l:o l:Iie .Scliom(:i submitted by iXIDI^IC which is a comprehensive, scheme. Certain directions have, however, been sought Tor [lom this Court. We approve l:he Scheme subrnitteiJ 1)Y IMDMC. '

¶30It is submitted bePore us that tlie Scheme.s whicli have been approved b'y this Court n'lust be subjecl; to ainy /-\ct or rul-es that may be i'rarned in consonancewilli the IMational Policy on Urban Street Vendois. it goe.;:; without saying that we have approved the Scliemes a;; prarned by MCID and IMOMC. .[P the legislature intei'venes and' fran'ies anotlaer scheme or regulations governing such Schemes, that will certainly supersede tP)i:'. Schen-ies prepared by MCD and NDMC. It is well settled that any adrninisti-ativeaction is always subject to law :• that may be. Prarned by the competent legislature.

¶35Subject to the aPoresaid modiPicati'ons/cliangcsin the Schemes submitted -by MCD and NDMC, the same are approved. The said authorities shall now tal<o appropriatesteps to implement the Scheme Porthwith. In case oP any diPPiculty Paced by them in implenienl.ing the schennes, ttiey shall have the liberty to apply to 1.1 li.^ Court."

¶8Lastly, in the recent judgment in the case oP GAitlda.liuj'h(supiu), learned counsel Por the respondent/NDMC speciPically relied upon paras 30, 32, 50 to 66 to state that the Supreme Court was consciou:. nl tlin Pact that a structured regulation and legislation is urgently rcguiirul In control and regulate the fundamental' right oP hawking. Slie also |)()inlpd out that the three tier disputes redressal mechani.sm set cjut in Ihe aPPidavit Piled by the then Chairperson oP tPie NDMC was taken, ni.ite (.il hy I the SupreiTie Court in para 72 of the aPOresaidJudgn'ient and in pnia / l, 11 was then observed as below W.P.fc; -^743/2011, 5254/2011 a connected nisU.ers Pmife

21.1 "73. In paragraph 12 oF the; amdavit it has been stated that there shall be an /Appellate /Authority which shcill attend to the redressal of grievances of 5c|ual.tcis, hawkers, traders, residents or any other person i.iy hearing appeals against the decision oP the Vendint.i Committee(Main). Paragraph 12 oP ttiat aPPidavitis Sf.;!. out below;- There shall be an /Appellate /Authority. On Porwardihg oP petitions I'eceived l.)y the Chaii-person, this /\uthority sPiall attend lo redressal oP grievances oP squatteis, hawkeis, traders, residents or any other person. Ihn Authority shall also hear appeals against Ihe decision oP Vending Cornh'iittee(Main), f^oci-sions oP this /Authorityunless challengedbePore a l-ligh(;i Forum or in any Competent Court,,stiall be linnl. Ttiis Authority stiall be initially Pleaded.by a [.lei.son appointed by tlie Chairperson having at least .10 years legal or judicial background-Pheie. (.an br; rnoi'e than one membet in this /Auttiority. '

¶9. APter making the aPoresaid observatioris,in paras 7^\ lo /(> ol judgn-ient,the SupremeCouit went on to observe as below-;- "74. Tn the said aPPidavit, wtiich was aPPirmed bePoin '. this Court on 24^'' August, 2010 it has been staled that NDMC stiall comply with tlie orders wliich woi.ild b(-! passed by tlie adjudicatorymechanism contemr)latedin • . the scheme and which has been approved by this Com I for the NDMC area. Unless such orders are. made suLijcct matter of cliallenge tjePore a higlier Poi'uni Ol in any other competent Court.

¶75In view oP such schemes; the hawkers, sqnal.tei'.s and vendors must abide by the Dispute Kedre.ssal scheme mentioned above. T'hei"e should not be any direct approach to this Court by way oP Presh petition oi I/As, bypassing ttie Dispiite Redressal Mechani.'ini provided in the sctierne. W.P.(C} ^743/2011, S2S4/2011 & connected mailers -T.,, ) A

¶76However, bePore 30'" June, 20;l.;l., Ihe ap|jro|..)nal;^-. Government is to enact a law on the basis oP l.lie. •mentioned above, or on the basis oP any aineiiclmenl. thereoP so that the hawlcers may precisely know the. contOLii'S of tineir rights."

¶10It was thus sought to be contended on belinlP,- ol the respondent/NDI^-ICthat there can be no vacuum as Par as leyulalion ol trade oP streethawkers/vendorsin the IMDMC jurisdictionis concernodand the failure on tPie part oPthe legislatureto abide by the tiinelinf...(.t oot by the Supreme Court in the case oP ,^ind^iMn_CsupraLI'-'Y pntbng in place a statute an ol' bePore 30.06.201:1.,cannot be interpreted by the petitioners/vendors to mean that they can contiriue then li.uh^ unhindered at any place oP their choice in the MDMC jurtsdicUon, in an unregulated manner and without any obstruction or ol:)Jection lion • MDMC. • • ' ll. Learned counsel Por the respondent/IMDMCparticularly r-ePeiied lo paras 74 and 75 of the aforesaid Judgment to state that the di'ir)Mb'. redressalscheme, noticed by the Supreme Court in para 7',. was the one that was legally functioning in MDMC jurisdicbon and which was taken note of by the Court in the preceding para 74. In other words, slie .stnted that the scheme as set out in the aPPidavitdated 24.00.20 10, Pileil by llie then Chairperson oP MDMC bePore the Supreme Court in Cigiiido; Ham's ca.se (supra)., was the one which was finally approved by the Supreme Court. She Purtlier subiriitted that assuming, without admitting, llial. the. I o W.P'.(C) 4743/2011, S2S^l/20Xi & conned.ed ms^l.ters P'agri 9 iff' "l

¶1dispute 1-ecii-essalscheme set out by the NDMC had lapsed on :;U-1

1.1, OS claimed by i:he petiticners,then the NDMC Act p--ovides an ndo.|uan, falibacic to ensure orderly rnanagementoT vei-idoi-s in the aieu- ...p' cifii referencewas made in this regard to. l:he provisionscontainedlu 221, 22^-1, 225 and ,226 oT Lhe said Act. 12,. .It was Purtherargued by Lhe counsel for Lhe iespondcnt/NDM^ H''''- the applicationPiled by the NDMC bePore Lhe SupremeCourt in .luly ./O II praying inter alia Per extension oP time to regulate hawkeis/.s(|Ut:iti(-..im •the NDMC area, as per the scheme mentioned in the judgmenfinGainda rase (.supral, till the enactmentoP a law by the legi.slaLi.iiein UmL regard, had not yet been Pinally disposed oP by the Supreme (...ouiL ,tL Lhe time oP passing of the status quo order dated 15.07.201:1.and similaily, the other application Piled by one oP the hawkers/vendorspraying inlci aiia Por restrainingthe respondenl:/NDMCProm granting leidKaaririgliis l:o the winners oP the-lucky draw oP lots Por allotmenL, which was Lo In-, held on

12.05-2011; or any daLe thereaPLer, was also pr^ consideration bePore the Supreme Court. Hence, no linality < attached to the order dated 15.7.2011 which can only be considmod ai measure till tPie Pinal .disposal oP Lhe aPoresaid application.'.;ni lln he enactment oP a legislation.

¶13On n-ierits, learned counsel Por Lhe i-espondenL/NDMCrelerrnd Lo lhe aPPidaviL daLed 01.08.20,11 i'iled by LPie DirecLor (EnPoicemcnL), Ixll'M( ., V\I.P.(C) •'1-743/2011, 5254/2011 a. connecl'&i nialj.eis P'BiQf?. i.'l-'' J wherein it was.stated that pursuant to tlie public notice issued by l.ho. IMDMC inviting applications under the NDI^IC Urban btieet \/r:-;iulin(.j Scheme in 'the year 2007, the respondent/NDMC I'lad received 'l.iO/ .applications.Tl'ie documents required by the applicants for registiatiun under the Scheme included a proor oP age, documentary pi-ooC/afiu-lDvil, Por the purpose oP annual income, prooP oP residence, prooP in siij.'l"."!."I special categorieslike handicapped,Kashmiri migrants etc. and pruol ol squatting in the MDMC area, IP any. In para 4 oP the aPoresaid adidnvit, the Pollowing criteria approved/adoptedby the Vending CummilU.e In shortlist the eligible applicants is set out;-"4. That the criteria approved/adopted by tl")e Vent. Committee to shortlist the eligible applicants is under:-

(i) the applicahts should be resident oP IDeltii. with name registered in electoral rolls as pei' abstiacl. photo E-P-'voll or lERO certiPicate. •(ii) The applicantshould be a iriajor, viz. with ovei years oP age as per valid birth certiPicate or' certiPicate or school certiPicate etc. a-s 1"1 is fip a g e

(iii) Tl-ie applicant should be a needy as per ini-f.inw: records of DC (Revenue) or as vulnerabilityref;ords oP Government oP MCT oP Delhi (Samajik Suvidha Sangam: vulnerable and most vulnerable category).

(iv) The api'jlicant should be registered as per' NHMt. Street Vendors Scheme. The policy verification oP the applicant should be available.

(v) The applicant or his dependent Pairiily memhci should not be employed-or si'iould not Piave any oth(;i tel'ibazari/yehding or any other business pi'eniises in f.]elhi as per record verification oP NDMC/MCD. W.P.(C) 47A3/'10tX, 525^1/2011 & connecl:ed mRlJ.ers Pagp .11 '>'• <•"' .'''ff (\/i) Preference will be. given to applicanls wlio^ iin-physicaliy handicapped or widows or senior above GO years •or Kashmiri migrants or -•'W-:'i (necessary cerliiPicate to be submitted and relaxation may be given in the above criteria)." ,14. /-\s per the respondent/NDMC, the category-wise list of cligihio shortlisted applicants in terms of the aforesaid criteri-a totalled lo applicants. The aftidavit dated

01.08.2011 states th.it the respondent/NtDMChas identiPied 183, new spaces, maddition t(.) tl.i(! .^0,. remainingspaces'identiPiedby the Thareja Committeein the lMt)M(.. niea, which were available' Poi^ allotment, thus taking the total nuiuhe, oh availablespaces to 38S. Kwas Purtherstated that due to Pactois like (.lo listing oP the l^arliament.Street on security grounds, construction ol Plyovers and" Metro .Stationsat various locationsin the NL-)ML Jui isdid.ion, the number oP authorized.(.-e/';/.7aza/7squatters has changed Iioin ..'1-to 404 in number. The number oP applicants, who ttie iespondent/NI)l K. claims, are vending unauthorisedlyat Connaught l^bce, Sarojini IMagnr, Parliament Street and Jabpath areas and in whose Pavoui, .r./-.//".- Q'lo orders are operating,is stated to be-3Z3 in number. The aPPidnvitasserts that simply because the names oP the petitioners,wtio are registeiodwilh ttie MDMC, Piglire in the eligibility list drawn by tiie iespondenl/Ml'IK., cannot be treated as proof oP their regularly vending in tlie MUMt. area . and nor does it conPer oh thern any enPorceablevested right to en.si.ir(:; a vending space for them in the MDMC area, which is directly depei on mr.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & coirneci.e/i rrwi.ters rnifw. 12 I'i' .''it i i • "vl ! ') \ ' i I the number oP spaces civailable. Thus, it was conteiidecltiiat neithor llu.'. possessionof any number of challans, nor the absence l:hereof can mnl((i a difference, for the reason l:hat challans cannot form the basis inr Ihn petitionersto claim any vested legal right to squat at a given o|.ii.icc.

¶15CoLinsel for the resiiiondent/NDMC Dsserted that the picvM-^nl. petitions are not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioneis h,ive ..m equally efficacious altei-nate' remedy of approaching the. .ippull.ite authority constituted by the Chairperson, NDMC, for rediessal nl Ihnii grievances and failure on-their part to have approached the Vondiiu.] Committeeis not on accountof tfie fact tliat tlie said Loniniii.teeini.h.K.liiuj the appellateauthority is not functioning, but because they have loumJ il more convenientto bypass the aforesaid forum and approac-h thir. (...ouil: directly, which is not permissible. She stated that extensive mnasuKt'-; have been taken by the respondent/MDIv|Cto. constitute the a.ijudiinl.oiy rneclianism by way of a three tier system in the following manner:-

¶1Vending Sub-Comhiittee (Site of Spaces), 2: Vending .Sub-Committee (l-leath and Hygiene) and

¶3Vending Sub-Comnnittee (Enforcement). ;he stated that tfie creation of l:he aforesaid three Con'imittees, Vending Committee (M.ain), as also of tfie a|:.)pellat.e which was constituted to redress the grievances of tfie squallei hawkers, traders, residents or any other person against the. (le.i.ir.inii ol W.P.fC) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected luatters P.EftJ'B of 7JI-the Vending LOrnmlttee(Main), wcis iDlciced ijeToie Uie -'UpieiiH-. coo,lder»Uonand tine said three tier'Bdjudicatorymech«nte.n wns .My approved in tl'ie judgmentof GjiiJidcLJlajii_(_^l2!^

¶17' per contra/ learned counsels Tor the petitioners/veiu:lo.who appeared on different dates, vehemently opposed the alorcsnid st,.nul taken by the respondent/NDMCand asserted that the scheme rionh..l hy the respohdent/MDMCforj-egulatingvending activities mits ji.iiisdu tion had lapsed on 30.06.20ilin the alisenceof the enactmentof aleyislntu as per directionsof the SLipi"emeCourt in the case of GailldcLRaniJs 'and as on date, there is no'scheme in existeiice. It was canvassed llml the implication of the aforesaid order of status quo passed hy th.; SupremeCourt on 15.07.2011can only.mean'thatirrespectiveof l.he Incl whether the ^squatting is legal of illegal, the same be permitled to condnue' on an 'as is where is' basis, and such sLdtus quo i-. lo 1h. ..maintainedby all the parties.tilla law is franied by the legislature. IS. Mr. B.B. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate appearing lur lhi> • petitioners/vendorsUbiriittedthat in the case of Gc!ind3_Km!l..(.^'iiPL>;t).'-I"' 'SupremeCourt had directed that tfie appropriategovernmentmust eiirni a law oh or before 30.06.2011 so that the hawkers may precisely I'.iiow the contOLli-s of their rights, hence the dispute redressal mef;h,ini:.m provided for in the scfierne mentioned in tfie aforesaid judgment i.duld operate only upto 30.06.2011 and thereaftei", the said scheme would W.P,(C} 4743/2011,. 5254-/2011 iZonnecl:ed nwlters .14 O'/" 2H i • automaticallystand-lapsed. He stated that no other Interpretationcan he given to iihe orderdated 15.07.20:1.1,directingmaintenanceol quo, in view oP the qualifying-words, "as it is obtainingtoday . Ile anjucd Ih.il ]{• the scheme was continuing to operate, as clanTied by lh(,.. Ir.aincd counsel foi" the respondent/NDMC,then there was no good reason lor the respondent/NDMCto have refrained from holding a draw of lois, whicl, was slated for the same day, I.e., ;l 5.07.2011,and that fact of l.hn n.nUc. is that even the respoiident/NDMChad understood the sta(.r/.s-quo nrdni-to mean that thei'e is no scheme in,placeafter 30.6.2011,foi the ic..i..c>n that in para 68 of the 'aforesaid judgment in the case of umuag. KJIM [supml, ail writ petitionsand the interim applicationsfiled befoiethe SupremeCourt were disposedof with clearand specificdii ection.-. Mial Uk problem of hawking .arid .street vending could be regulr.led by the •schemes framed by the NDMC ahd MCD only opto 30.06.20.1JTii-id in.l thereafter. It was asserted on behalf of the petiUoners/vendois lhal n-: on date, the directions of the Supreme Court that sf^-iCus (ju(> is In be maintained by the parties can only be given one interpretation, that till a law is ultimatelyenacted by the Parliament,iri-es|.iectiveni Ifegal status, all the petitioners/vendorswould be permittei.l to squatting/hawkingat.the sites that have been occupied by thern.. ;l.9. Insofar as the composition of the dispute redressal me.ch.iili;. concerned^ learned Senior /Advocate for the petitioners siibmiltcM.I contrary to tlie understanding of the respondent/NUM^.., Ibe '•eh W.r.(C)47-43/2011,S254/2011S connectednn^Uers Faye .t.'p vf r •; . reproducedat paras 72 ahd 73 in tine judgmentin the case oP Gninda llairi (sui^ra),-was not the one which was actually recognized by tl'ie .'•..u|.iien in Court, and rather it is the dispute redressalscheme rnen.tionedin i.'nrn or the aforesaid judgrnenti.e., "'a scheme for urban street \/en(Ji)i.s loi .• NDMC area as formulated in the year .2006, vA/hicti wa.s ulliniiil.(.'.ly• approved by the Supreme Court on .17.05.2007, in the case of .'^udliir 'M.adan (sup.ra)., which is tlie scheme wtiich finds n'lention specilitnllyin the following p.ara 74 and is the one approved by the Supreme Cuuit. II was contendedthat even otherwise,the IMational Capitallerntory of l,.'elhi l_aws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 (hereinaPterrePerred to as 'bipeciiall iP'rcjiviisiioiiiiBAclt') comes to the rescue oP the petitioners Por the iea.son that sub-clause (2) oP Section 3 oP ttie Special l-^rovisions Act niomlates maintenance oP status quo as on 01.01.200G, notwith.slrmdinLi any judgment,-decreeor order oP any court, in respect oP encroadinu^^ntoi unauthorized development. Thus, it was submitted on Piel)nll nl !hc> petitioners/vendors that they were entitled to grant oP inteiim prolcclion till the enactment oP a legislation to regulate hawldng/vending nctivilies in urban streets in IDelhi on the basis oP the National Policy on Ui'l.ian Sl.ifuil. Vendors, 2009 Pramed on 17.06.2009 and the Special Provisions Act, 20-With rePerence to the .Special Provisions /Act, learned .'irinii "/Advocate for the petitioners stated that the phrase, "unnutlu )ri/ed development" used in ttie dePlnition clause has to be seen ii'i Ihe .'•..-imo context as tl')e one in which the phrase "encroachmeiit" has been defined, WJK(C) y!7^3.3/2011, 5254/7.011 « connected inaire.rs P'<ige. .i.ft of ; t'' I .! Wherein it is h-iehtionedthat putting up oP temporary, semi-tenipoiary or permanentstructure for residential use or con-imercial use or any ol.lici use, and the placementof goods on the pavements by the petitionu i.. liable to be termed as unauthorizeduse Por maintainingstatus ciuu uihIri the Special i^rovisionsAct.' Much emphasis was laid on tl)e averments made by the respondent/MDMCin its interim application Tiled bnloie ihc; Supi-emeCourt in ainda Rarn's..case_(su.QJZO.in July 2l);l.;t, to submit Ih.il the respondent/NDMCitselP had stated in the said appliciition sclneme.had lapsed and therefore, the only interpretationthat can be given to the sta/:us'Q/./0 .order passed by the Supreme f.ourt on

15.07.2011 can be that no scheme would exist after JO.O(.k.'.(.)1,1 and thus, the behePitoP the Special ProvisionsAct ought to be extended to the petitioners-He submitted that the phrase 'street veiuJois h,r. b(..(,n clearly defined under the Nadonal Policy on Urban Street Vendors, .'.Oii'J. Reliance was placed in tlie case of ivirr^ Town Hall L\ Ors. reported as'(2009) 12 SCC 475 provisionsof the Special ProvisionsAct to submit that even the Court had recognized the Pact that tfie Special Provisions A(..t is Central law governing the field and it would have primacy ovei olho.i Statutes arid administrative orders. It is thus stated that the provisions oP the NDMC Act cannot be invoked by the respondent/MIJML.as the •:aid /Act is not in consonance witli Article 96 oP the Constitution oP .India .md Purthermore,' the Special Provisions Act being' valid till the end of vs ly W.P.(C) ^•7'43/2011^ 5254/2011 B con/iecfed matXers Page '.I 7 qC December2011, no orders In aerogaUonof the provisionsof Uie sai.l Ari can be passed.

¶21Mr. S-K. Tripathi, Advocate appearing Por some nP |the petitionei-s/vendorssouglit to ernbellisl'itl'ie submissionsoP Mr.,Snwlmcy, Sr.Advocate and relied on the orders passed in m('"P,.t'C) i449/.,f(l«.ll..ll. entitled Mohdl_lsmaii_.^s^ to urge ttiat the "Ai.p.'.llate Authority" constituted under the dispute redressal mechanrsm hn the.. NDMC area, has not been functioning,whicli fact he .^.tated is Ijuiik. oul from a perusal oP the order dated 08.03.2011 passed mtPie nlorosaur case, wherein the Court tooi< notice of the claim oP the petitioner/vo.niloi •thereJn to the ePPect that inspite oP orders passed by tlie App'illdle Authority allowing squatting at a particularsite, till a Pinal determinnl.ion by the Vending Committeeas to-his eligibilii:y,the respondent/IMhMi..and the police were 'disturbing his activities. In the aPoresaid ord(!i\ i.iio. statement oP the, counsel Ix-ir the respondent/NDMCwas recoidei.l to Ihu ePPect that the appellateauthority,whose order was being rcliod upon by the petitionertherein,was constitutedinitiallyPor the MCID aieas and Inloi started PunctioningPor ti'ie IMDMC areas as well for ttie reason tiiat r,il thai timie, .there was np separate-.appellateautliority Por the i\IDM(... areas, bui subsequently, in accordance with the scheme approved by the .Supio.me Clourt, the Chairperson,, NDMC ; had constituted a separate authority Por •the NDi;^C areas. "rtierePore, the appellate. ni appointed earlier had ceased to liave jurisdiction qua the NDMC." arcn;,. W.P.fCJ 4743/2011, S154/2011 ft connected maU'srs Patfe iU fff•'/>'•} J was thus contended on behalf of the petitioners/vendorstf.al thr-aforesaidorder clearly indicatesthat the appellateautlloritvmthe Ml'l It. areas is nol: funcljoning.

¶22Reliance was also placet) on U'le n'linul'es oT l:he nieeUiu.] ol Uu. \/enclingCommitteedated 11.03.20.L0,to claim diat iP the Pact oP whcUiOi theie was actual squatting/vendingwas veriPied by the Commitlet:and il the names oP the petitioners/vendorsPigured in the eligibilitylist |.)i i-p-ik.mI by the respondent/MDMCfor holding the draw oP lots, then it did nol he m the mouth oP the respondent/NDMCto claiir, that the petitioners,win-had been veriPied•and Pound to be eligible, were not entitled to si|nnt at various sites in the NDMC area aPter 30.0G.2U.L.t.

¶23Ih rebuttal, counsel for the respondent/NDMC disi.)uleri tlK.> contentions oP the petitioners/vendorsand while reiterating hor, cai Im.m submissions, asserted that the petitioners did not have any Ingnlly enPorceable right, created on the basis oP the eligibility list diawn l.iy NDMC, Por claiming,grant oP interim orders in their favour. .Shr,'. a(|ain referred to paras 68, 69, 75, 76 and 78 of the Judgment in tlie >:n/;o nf Gainda Ram (supj-a), to emptiasize tPiat when the aforesaid parar. arc. read collectively, it is clear that the petitiohers cannot (.;lalin an entitlement to any interim orders as souglit by them in the piesnnt proceedings-She further stated that even otherwise, tfie .'..pr-.cial Provisions Act relied upon by the petitioners' has duly recogni>:eil the V\fjy.(C) ^l743/2011r 525^f~/2Uil ctP/irrecre/Y ftraUers II'/" ' V •• schemes prepared by U'le local auLhorities in the National Capital Ic.i illory-of Delhi for regulation oT Lii'ban street vendors. To substantiate Ihe said subrnissiof), she drew the attention oT tliis Court to the preamble np ihc. afoi-esaid /Act, which mentions the fact l:hat all the scliemes i3re|..iared by the local authorities in the IMational Capital Territory oT Delhi, loi .regulationof urban street vendors in accordancewith the National I'olicy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 and the l^laster Plan for Delhi 1, have been in'iplemented and Further that more time is required leu-piopei' ' iiTiplementatioh of the schemes regarding hawkers and urban .sl.recl vendors., ; .24. A specific rePerence was made by the learned coun.sel lor l.lie respondent/lMDMCto Section 2(l)(c) oP the Special ProvisionsAct, which defines the phrase ^^encroachment"to claim that it does not covei' the petitionershei'ein, who are squatters. FurtherrePerencewas made to l.he provision of Section 3 oP the Special ProvisionsAct, which contains a obstante clause, to state that status quo with regard Lb the encroacl or unauthorized developmentas on 01.01.2006, mei'itioned in llic! .said fjrovision, was in . the context oP the dePii')ition of' tlio pliia.sc;. "encroachirient" and "unautliorized development" set out in the delinilion clause at Sections 2(l)(c) and 2(l)(i) respectively ol ttie .Spi'ci-il PiTjvisions Act and thus, the petitioners/vendoi's did not quality uniler thr; -aforesaid enacti'nent Por clain'iing protection as iiorie oP the ingredienl;. sol out in the provisions oP the aPoresaid enactment are round to exist in thoji i/\r.P.(C) '^743/20:11, 5254/20X1 Si connected luaU.ers Pfil'e ! • I , I case. It was submitted that the Special Provisions Act, wliich crime inh) efPect in the-year 2007 and has been extended Prom tin'ie tcj Limo; rind lastly, till December 2011, does not give pern'iission to persons lo ie.-.';1nrl: any activity once 'they have been removed by the civic rmlhority rind similarly, the Scheme oP 2009 does not entitle the registrants to r;(|iiril. unless they have beeh allotted a speciPicsite. Jn sLipport oP tlie nloicsnid submission, reliance was place on the judgment in tPie case of MLU vs. GLirna!ii._KaUi:reported as (1989) -1 SCC 101. For the purpose oP interpl-^etingthe meaning oP the phrase, "structure",rePerence was mndn to the judgment oP the Supreme Court in the case ol MUitiv-i.l-Kil •rm-pm-ation oP Greater l-V)mbav Ors. vs. Indimi..QJLC.gr|jurg.^.i'-'!.'LLd. reported as AIIR 1991-SC 686. 'For the purpose oP understandingIho. expression,^status quo', rePerencewas made to the judgmentmthe <.im-v of p.hnratrokinci Coal Umitexl_^^5ta];^ILLJ:iihm-:ik^^ iepoiiedas 1987 (Siiipip)see 394 to submit that in ordinary legal coniK.itation,the term 'statusc/.uo'implies'theexistingstate oP things at" any given puinl ol time.

¶25As Por the National Policy on Urban .Street Vendors, ccjuiisel (ni the respondent/NDMCstated that both, the 2004 policy and the 2(10'.^ |..'oli(.y, find mention in the decision oP the Supreme Court in the case ol Ucijn.da Ram rsupi'al and it was only aPter taldng into consideration Hie said policies^ did the Court directed ttie institutionalizatiorioP uihan sImmM vending through legislatioh. It was Purtlier stated that ot the lime ol 'W.P.{C)4743/2011^ S1S4/20:(.1 K conneci.e.d lUsUers P'^ge. 2.1 of -Vt \ I • . ,.!> i I i " ! 'C i ) deiivering, the Judgment: dated 8.10.2010, .tiie Supi'en'ie Court l.ook niili((-5 of the l\ICT oC Delhi Laws (Special i-'rovisions) Act, 2009, whicl'i wrj? valid upto '30.!l2.2010, apart Pron-i ' noticing the Model Street Vendors (Protection-of Livelihood and Regulation oP Street Vending) I'MII, -•'OU',) introduced by the Government of India, Ministry of Hour.ing Ui l.)nn Poverty Alleviation.She stated that nothing new is now being .'^iuhmil1e(.l by the petitioners/vendorsherein, Por ttie present petition;; to Lo entertaihedfor any purpose••v\/hatsoeverand all the grievancesraised Ly _the petitioners can-easily' be ' addressed before tlie Vo.nding •GorniTiittee/appellateauthority under the scheme relating l.o urbnn .Mi cel. vending in the NDMC area, which Pora continueto reiriain functionnl,even ' after 30.6.2011. . 26. Tl'iis Court has heard tliese matters at length since .1,/.u...01I., on differehl: dates. Various counsels Por the petitioners/vendoisand Ihc Standing Counsel for the respondent/NDMChad addressed the Lourl. :Their respective arguments have been taken note of. Botlr sides hove made sti'enuous efforts to explain what the status c)uo cjidci d.it .(

15.7.2011 passed by the Supreme Court in the, case ol baindd Ram(supra),implies. The leitmotiror the argumentsaddressed on l.iehall of the petitioners/vendorsis that the status quo olxler read wilfi 1,1 le .qualifying.words, "as it is obtainirigtoday", suPfixed to the order, can only be read to imply that as oh date, i.e., 15.7.2011, there was no srhenie operationalin the NDMC areas to regulatevending activitiesand till a Inw W.P.(CJ4-743/20i.tr 5254/20X1 fli connected matters Page 7.2 jn >•, • I't V.J I,: is ultimatelyenacted,by the legislature,all the petitioneis,inespectiv their legal status, can continue squatting/hawkingat differentsites that have been occupied by them. It is also assertedthat in the teeth of the statusquo 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 respondent/NDMCfor being allotted specific tehbazarispaces 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/NDIMC.the second limb of submissions made by the learned counsels foi the petitioners/vendorswas that the Special ProvisionsAct would additionally come to the rescCie of the •petitioners/vendors,which also requires • maintenance of status quo as existing on 01.10.2006, till the end of December, 2011. \

¶27On the other hand, the main thrust of the argumentsaddressed by the counsel' for the respondent/NDMCwas that as the legislatuie has failed to enact an appropriatelegislation in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gainda Ramfsupra).,the subsequentorder dated 15.7.2011 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 partiescan be finally determined through legislation. It was submitted that while W.P,(C)4743/2011,5254/2011&connectedmatters Page 23 of28 .... V. I I , r uo. passing the status quo order on 15.07.2011, the Supren,e Cornt wnr; consdoLis of the fact that the Parliament had yet to ennd comprehensivelegislatioii to regulate urban street vending nnd msu(.h circumstances, it goes without saying that it was the mteiit ol the (.unit that ttie entire dispute redressal mechanismas ieLogni/_ed GiainclaJB.aniCsuiii:alwould continue,to remain in operation, sn r>s in regulate the urban streetvendin'g in,the NIDIMC area, till the leyi-slalmnin thob regard is enacted. Further, it was stressed that lhe ;ipe.:inl ProvisionsAct did not provide any protectiveumbrella to tlie petitmni-i whose squatting activities, neither fell under the "encroachment",nor under "unauthorizeddevelopi'nent-Jt wa... asserted that^even 'otherwise pending an appropriate legi.slatiuii, the NDMC /\c.t waj availableas a fall bacl< option and the relevant provi.-ions in the said enactmentwould continue l:o regulatestreetve.Tidini].u.livitym the MDIv|C area and the petitioners/vendorscould not claim a vcs1(mI iighl I • . to squat at any site of their own. 28-From the above, it is apparent that arguments and loiintci arquiTientshave been raised by botli sides on their respectiveveisioii.'.of the iTieaning and the effect of the status quo order dalXM.I I.!)'./..MHI passed by the .Supren'ie'Court.-It is also very apparent, tfiat the m(^.nnini| sought to be attributed by both sides as to the implication of lhe ;.nid I status quo order, is diametricallyopposed to each other. Nijt only this, both sides are at a tangeht'on the factum of tfie pendency or nlherwi;;t-.ol 4743/20X1, 5254/20X1 a. connecCed /nalj.ers Fnge 2-'l tn' ./i'f the iniierim applications filed before Lhe Supreme Court Ijy bulh, the-. applicants/vendorsand the respondent/NDMC,for clarifications,on which •the aforesaid order came to-be passed as it is .the stand c.'l the respondent/NDMCthat the aforesaid appiicaiiions were not (.lispu..(.d ol while passingthe order dated 15.7.2011. The partiesare pole.s .ipail on .the question of import of the stati.is quo order, and the eife.l nl l.lie, observations i'nade by the Supreme Court^ in the case ol' Caiuda R^nlsupra].as regards the approval of NDMC.schen,e. They arc nl.u ai. loggerheads on' the cofnposition of the adjudicatory rnechunrsm in tlu.. 'mDMC iurisdictionand the manner of its functioning,as also Lhe. idcntily of the scheme which is validlyoperatingin the I^DMC areas for rec"ilatimj urban street vending, which had all been sLibject maLLer of con.sideiaLmn before the Suprenie Court in the aforesaid case. 1he othr.i agitated by the parties, starting from the interpretationof the observationsmade by the Supreme Court in the aforesaidJuclgmo Lhe formulation of the scheme as approved by the .Supreme C case of Sudl-iir Madan (supra), to tlie composition of thc.^ redres.3al rneGtianisriT and its validity as also the nieaning •quo order, are all in a turmoil as both ttie parties licive stonily dele their respectivestands which .are completelyat variance with eac The only .cdn-imon ground shared by the parties.is the factum ol pn;;; of the recent judgment dated 08.10.2010 in tfie case ol" Cai.iida ITi(sijpra,)and ttie subsequentstatus quo order dated IS.7.20.1.1 passed le mf.P.(C) ^f743/201I, 5254/2011 ft coVrneciecf rual.fers Pnyf. 25 of -IfI

¥ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 + w.p.rci 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. 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. 4649/2011. 4722/2011. 2601/2011. 2S02/2011. 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. 5341/2011. 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. 5Q89/20il" 5099/2011, 5114/201^. 5115/2011 5117/2011, 5129/2011, 5139/2011, 5144/2Q11, 6708/2011_ 6799/2011, 6824/2011. 6825/2011. 6826/2011. 6901/2011. 6902/2011. 6903/2011. 6906/2011. 6907/2Q11., 6908/2011. 6909/7011, 6910/2011,—6917/2011. 6919/2011. 6920/2011. fiQ5i/5nii 6922/2011 6932/2011 ;,nri r Oi.Zl/2011. THE MATTERS HF Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4347/2011 KIRPALSINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4559/2011 ^iKKAL biNbH Petitioner in W.P.rc) 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 SIIMGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4827/2011 ^ Petitionerin W.P.(C)4923/2011 DMUPAL biNbH Petitioner in W.P.rc) 5024/2011 SURENDERSINGH AIMD ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5028/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4775/2011 RAKESH KUMAR AND 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.rC) 5312/2011 SHAKEELAHMED Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5317/2011 NAND KISHORE Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5402/2011 RINKU KUMAR GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5403/2011 HARJEET KAUR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5405/2011 NARESH KUMAR RAO AND ORS P