Anil Singh v. Ndmc and Ors

judgment. ' • , A. To give a brieP background oP; the dispute," learned cbunsel Por the respondent/MDMC walked this Court^through sorne pron'-iinent decisions uP .the Supreme Court-rendered' Prom tiime to time, wliicl'i relate Lo pavemenl. W.P',(CJ-^l?y^-3/2011, 5254/a corTne(jie,d matters Faye. 4 itt 2S ;• squatCers/hawkers,starHng from the decision in Ll'ie case ol' badaii oinyii , vs.,..J\LDMC..&Oi:s. reported as (1998) SCC 727, interim .^I'derdnLed .

03.03.2006 -passed•by the SCipreme Court in JL6ti)9/1 enLitled .Sndhir Madan &Ors.-vs. MCD, the final judgnientin the i.;osc uf c;,,Hhir Madan fsLiTal reported'as(2009),-17SGC 597 and..l.asUy, the judgmentdated 08.10.2-010passed in; the case ol\GciiJlciajyii)J>,uuiM.)-.

¶5Learned counsel for the respondent/IMDIMCvehementlyopposed thi-; prayer of the petitioners/vendorsfor grant of interim orders resti.lining tl-ie respondent/MDMCfrom removinig then') from tlie sites occupied by. U'lern till the enactment of an appropriate legislation, in tei ms uf I.hi., directions issued by the Supreme -Court in' the. case of C',a.I)iL|a ' She particularly.referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paras 40 and '-1J. of.the judgment in the case of Sodmi. Sin'gh (s.up'ra.).,.whicfi. dealt witfi tfie, immediate eviction of unauthoii/:etl squatters/hawkers and laid emphasis;on the fact tliat in tfie said coso, tf)e Supreme Court had directed removal of unauthorized, squatters/hawkers , without awaiting final allotmeilt of sites to be allo(;ted to eligible clnimani3; at tl'ie places recommended by thie .Jhareja Committee or suggested by the IMfJI^IC. • •• V ..

¶6Again, in tl'ie interim order dated. 03.Q3-.200G passei-l in Sudliir Madan's case fsuoral, the following observation inat.le by tiie .':-;upremi::,'. Court was highliglited by the counsel for the respondent/IMDMC:- . "(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 ffi connecf.fiif mBiiers FiJ.ge .7or.zrr- "While we undertake ttiis ' exfercise,,.we diiect t le Authorities to see to it ttiat tliose per'sons, wlu) aie carrying on'hawking activities or who are squiatting on •public land without any authority, even iii accordance with the present day scheme in force, are removed forthwith. Ttiis includes unautliorizecl hawking, squatting on public streets, footpaths and public paiks, including playground.'Wedirect the Delhi Administration to take steps immediately;incollaborcitrorMA/ithMLD and •NDMC with necessary assistance from Uell'ii I'olice to clear the roads, streets, footpaths, parks etc. by unauthorized •occupants/squatters/haw.kers." 7;' As to .the judgme-nt dated 17.Ob.2007 rendered in tl;ie case ul Su.clhjj;.Mactan/Xsu^ much emphasis was laid'.by the counsel for the respondent/NDi^^C'on .paras 28 to :30 and, 35, which are ie|,iroducod lie re in beIow fo r, i"ea d y-re feren ce: - "28. The Mew Delhi-Mlunicipal Committee has also submitted its Scheme. W;e liave-considered iifie Scfieme subniitted before, us. Thb area which falls under MI3MI. does not create probleiris' such as-those in Ll'ie areas under MCD.' However, in:tfte said S'ch,erne reference has been made to persons :wh.o, do not ,l:iave permission under Section 225 or licence i,inder Section 330 of the NDMC Act, 1994 but who are unauthorisedly CC to carry .on business-as hawkers/street vendors. have been described as t;hose who are "tolerated" in the NDMC area. We fail' to understand why any.person who violates the:law should bje tolerated. Either they sfrould be compell.ed to obey.tlie; law.or the law-may be sLiitably ^aiTiended, if it is found to create undue ftardsliip. 'I'lift problems need to be addressed-by the legislature or the rLilemaking'authority. We, therefore, observe tl'iat.if il is felt ttiat-the persons who fall in tfiis category lequire special protection, tl'ie /Act may be suitably aniended..to cover their; cases or else, the number of such illegal squatters n'lay increase from time to-time. : - mr.P.fC) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 fi cojinec!:<Bd Page 6 '.>f 20 • )

¶29There has been no serious objecUon'l:o Llie Scheme subrnittecl 'by NDMC whicjh is a cornpreiiensive scherne. Certain directions have, liiowever, been sought for Irorn this. Court. . We approve the Scheme submiited by • 30. It is submitted bePoij'e us that tl'i'e Schemes wliicli have been approved by l.his Court -must be subject to any /Act or. r'ules that may be framed' in consonance wil.ii the IMation-a! Policy on Urban Street Vendors. .I.t goes without saying, that .we have approved the Schemes DS framed by. MCD and NDMC--Ef the legislature intervenes •and-frames another scheme or regulations g.overniny such Schemes, that will certainly supersede l;lie Schemes prepared by MCD and NDMC. It is well settled tliat any adrnini.5.trative action is always subject to law •that may be-'framed by the competent legislatui'e. .,35. Subject to the afoi"esaid' modincations/cfianges-in 'the Schemes submitted jby-I^ICD and NDMC, ttie'sairie are approved. The said authorities shall now tal<e appropiiate steps to implement the Scheme foittiwith. In case of any dirficulty faced by them in implementing the schemes, they shall tiave the liberty to apply to l.fii.s-Court." -

¶8/Lastly, in the recent judgn'ient in the case of Gairida Ram (supra), lea.rned-coLii"isel for the respondent/NDMC speciPicaliy i"elied u|)Oii paras 30, 3^^.,. 50 to 6"b-to state that tlie Supreme Court was conscious of the; • fact that a structured regulation and legislation is. urgently i"e(|uiicd to contiol and regulate the fundramental right of hawking. Sl'ie also riohited out that the three tier disputes redressal mecriani.sn"i set out in the affidavitfiled'by the then Chairperson.of tlie NDMC was taken note oC hy I the SupremeCourt in para 72 of the aforesaidjudgmentand in pnra 7:i, it i • • ; was then observed as below:- - ! 'W.P.(CJ^743/20:ll,5254/20X1ffi conn^&ednmi.ters Page 7 of '.m - )

¶9"73. In paragraph 12 of, the'aPPidavil: it that' there shall be an AlppeJlate /AiJth attend to the redressal. of grievaric hawkers, traders, residents or any : ( liearing appeals against; the decision Comn-iittee

(Main). I^aragraph 12 of th OLitbelow:- There shall be an /Appellate forwarding of petitipris Chairperson, this Auttiority. lias been stated :)rity whicti shall' ets oP 'squatters, ther person by of the Vending. Bt affidavit is sot Aulll'iortty. On rec(iived l.')y the •lall attend lo l;lie redressal of grievances of squatters, tiawkei's, traders, residents ' or any ottiei Authority shall also hear appe decisio'n of Vending Cornrhittee (> of this Authority unless challengec Forurn or in any CjDn'ipetent Court, Ttiis Authority slialh be initially i'lec appointed by tl'ie Chairperson ha years legal or judicial backgrounc more than one meri"iber in ttiis AliI: After nnaking the" aforesaid observations, in- •i"ient, the Supreme Court w.ent 'on to observe ai '74. In tine said affidavit, wfiich was this Court oh 24'^'' Augus.t, 2010 it has NDMC si'iall comply with the orders-passed by the acljudicatory rnechariism the scheme and \A/hich has been approv foi" the NDMC area, unless such orders a matter of challenge before a higlier •other con-ipetent Court.

¶75In view of suet) schemes,". tfte-hav\ and vendors' must abide by the Dis •'scheme mentioned above. There shoi direct approach' to tliis Court by way.of f .lAs, bypassing tfie tOispute l-<edres5 provided in i;he scheme. person, aIs against Ihe aia). IDecisions before a 1-1 igher si'iall be final, ded by a persoi'i /inq at least JO There can he •lority." aras /4 l:o 7(.i of ttie below';- affirmed, l;,)efoi e lj)een stated Lliaf wliich would on tern plated in ed by tliis Couit •e. made subject fctrum or' in any kers, squatters 3ute l-iediessal lid not be any rest) petitio.n oi a I Meet Ia W-P.(C) S254/20J:l ft cunnectect matters • rageO uf28

¶76However, before 30''^ June, 2011,. l:he approijrial.e Government is to enact a law on the basis of ttie I3ill • mentioned above, or on tlie basis' oP any amencJnienl. tl'iereoP so that the hawl<ers may precisely know the contours of their rights."

10.' Tt was thus sought to be contended on belialf of tlie respondent/IMDI'^Cthat there can be no vacuum as fai' as regulotion of trade of street hawkers/vendors in the MIDMC jurisdiction is concerneij nnd the failure on the part of the legislature to abide by the timeline set out by the Supreme -Court in the case of Gainda l^vai'n fsupr'a), by rnif.Ung in place'a statute on or-before-30.06.2011, cannot be interpreted liy tlie petitioners/vendors to mean tliat tiiey can continue their l.i ade unhindered at any'place of their choice in the NIDMC jurisdit:! ioii, in an unregulated manner and without any obstruction or ofijection hom the " MDMC. • •

¶11Learned counsel for the respo,ndent/r\ll3MC particulai'ly refeired lo paras 7^4 and of tfie aforesaid judgment to state that the rjis redressal scheme, noticed by the Supreme Couit in par'a 75 was tliat was legally functioainq in IMDMC jurisdiction and which was tol<eii note of by the Court in the preceding para 74. -In^ other woi'ds, sl ie stated that the scheme as set out in the affidavit dated 24.00.2010, filed My the then Chairperson of IMDI^IC before tlie Supretiie Cotirt in Gajjida Kcim's C-^se (sup.i.a), was the one wii-ich was finally appr'oved by th'e ipir.!rne Court. She further submitted that assuniing, without-admitting,that the 4y4:3/20M^S7.S^t/7.01X®connectedni3i:S:ers Psgp, 9 irl':/Jl, j l.e c one dispute redressalsciiemeset out by tlie ND|V|C I'lad lapsed on 3C).6.v()11, 05 claimed by the petitioners,then the MDMC Act provides an adeMuate Pallback to. ensure orderly managementoP vendors ii'i the area. .Speulu. rePerence:.was'madein this regard•tottie provisipn?contained in ::;iccti()n.s 221, 224, 225 and 226 oP the said Act. • : 12, It was-Purtherargued by the counsel Por the re5ponder)t/NI.^M(.-th.-.it the applicationPNed by the NDMC bePore the Supreme'Courtin .luly 201 I, praying inter alia Por.extensionoP tiiine to regulate hawkers/squatteis mi tl"ie MDMC area, as per the scPieme I'nentionedin tPie judgiTientiii GaiLida Ram'.q case (supra), till the enactment oP a law by^the legislature in that regard, had not yet been Piiially disposed oP by the Supreme Coi.nt nf tlie •time oP passing oP the status quo order dated IS.07.2011 and similarly, the other., application PiTed by one 'of the tiawkers/vendors pi ayin.g inlei' alia Por restraining the respondent/NDI^IC Prom granting Te.hi:)dZc>riright.s •to ttie winners oP the'lucky draw oPi lots Por allotmei'it, which was to l:)e \ held on'

12.05.2011 or any date tliereafter, was also peni.liny con.sjcleration bePore the Supreme Court. Hence, no Pinality could he attached to the order dated 15.7..2C)ll which can only be consic.ieie(I an interim nieasure till the Plnal disposqil oP the aPoresaid applicatlon.s or-lhc-:; enactment of a legislation.

¶13On merits, learned counsel Por the respondent/NDMC rePeri erl to the aPPidav-it dated 01.08.2011 Piled by tlie Director (EnPorceirient), NDMi.":/ W.P.(CJ4.74.3/2011,5254/2011 &..c.onnerJ:^iimasters Pb"p l(Kof 7lt r ' M ^' . •' '-If -) / f: wherein it"was stated that pursuant,to the public notice issueil hy the ; ,NDlviC inviting applications under the I^IDMC•Urban Street Vending j Scheme in "the year 2007, the respondent/NDMC had received.C;!&7 ^ applications.Ttie docunnents required by tiie applicants Tor registration •i under the 'Scherne included a prooT oP age, documentary-prool/ariidavil. Tor the purpose of annual income, proof oP residence, prooP iii su|.ipoil.oP i' special categoiieslike handicap|.Ted,Ivashmiii migi.ants etc. c.ind pio(.iP •^ squatting in the MDMC area, iP any. In parp'4 oP the aPoresaid atddavit; the Pollowing'-criteriaapproved/adoptedby the Vending Comniilleo to shortlist the eligible applicants is set out;-• • • • "4. That the criteria approved/adopted by tlio Vending t eornrnittee to s'hortlist the' eligible applicants is as ' under;-

(i) The applicant's siioulcj be resident oP Delhi, witti Pus • • . name registered ' in electoral rolls as per abstract ot. I photo E-R.oli or EF<0 certipicate. -

(ii) Ttie applicant-should Hoe a nnajor, viz. witti over .Lf'. years oP-age -as' per valid birth'' certificate or age • - . certificate or school certificate etc.

(iii) The aiTplicant should be a needy as |3er income - • records of iDC (Revenue) or as vulnei'ability records oP Government oP NCT oP Delhi (Samaiilc Suvidlia .Saiigam; vulnerable and most vulneral^ie csitegory).

(iv) The api'jiicant should be registered as per NDM(.-.' . • Street Vendors Scheme. The policy, veriPication oP the • applicant should be available. .1 • (v) The applicant or his dependent Parriily ' meMii.ici' should not ,be en;iplpyed: oi" sliould not Piave any oti-ioi : • -tetibazari/yending or aily othei" business premises in , • •• ' Delhi as per record veriPication oP NDP^IC/MCD. ; W.P.(C} 474-3/2Q11, 5Z54/201X connecHir.fJntaLters PaQe .1X of 7J't (\/i). Preference will be. given to applicants wlio. aie physically handicapped qr widows or senior citizens above GO yeeirs •or Kashiniri migrants or SL./&I ,• (necessary certiPicate to .'be submitted and rela.x.ation : •, may be given in the above criteria)." -i .14. As per the respondent/NDMC,.the category-wise list -or, eligible ; shortlisted applicants in terms of the aforesaid'cn-terla totalled to •• applicants^ The, "affidavit dateci Ol.OS.^OiJ. st.atCo that the. respondent/NDMChas identified 183;new spaces, in addition to the I remainingspaces identifiedby the Thareja Committee in the Nt^MC.. area, ' wliich were available' for allotment, thus taking tlie total nuniber of availablespiaces to 386. It was fui'therstated tliat due to factois lil'.e (Je--listing of the Parliament Street on secuiity grounds, consti'iicl.ion of flyovers and' Metro Stations at various locations in the I\II3MC jui isdicl.ion, the. number of authorized-tehbazari squatters has changed froni .:l'h'i to 404 in number. The n'umber.of applicants, who the respondi:-Mil:/i\ll.)M(.. . claims, are vending unauthorisedly at Connaught-. Place, Sarojini-Nagar, Parliament Street and Janpath areas and in whose favour', slol.i.is quo oi-ders are operating, is stated to be'323 in number. Tfie affidavit assei t.s that sim.ply because the names of tl'ie petitioners, wlio are registered wilh tl'ie NDMC, figure in. the eligibility 'Mst drawn by tlie res|.")oru.lent/Nt)MC:, cannot be treated as pi"oof of their'regularly vending in tl'ie NDMC area • and nor does it confer on them any enforceable vested iight to en.';ure a vetiding space for them in the NDMC area, whicfi is'directly ciependent r)n 4743/2011^ 5254/20pl Si connecXeiiimaneis ' .PRgt?.12 ai'2tt the number of spaces available. Thus, it was contended that neiLhi..i l.lu... possessionof any'numberof challans, nor the a.bsence thereofcan mnke a difference, for the reason thatxhallanscannot form the basis fur the. petitioners l:o claim any.vested-legalri|ght to squat at a given space. • Counsel, -for the resporident/IMDMC asserted, that the r.resent petitions are not maintainable ina.S|rnuch as the 'petitionc-yrs liave i;.in equally efficacious alternate •remedy of approaching ttie a|ipf2llate authority.-,constituted by the.Chairperson; NDMC, Tor redresisal f)l then' grievances and failure, on their part to have approached ttie Vending Coriin-iittee' is nOt On account oP the fact tliat tlie said Committee including ttie appellate, autl'iori.ty is not functioning, but-because they liave found it more convenient to bypass the aforpjsaid forum and a'pproach this (...ourt directly, •which is not permissible. She stated, ttiat extensive measurc.s have been taken by the respondent/ilMDMC to constitute tlie ad]U(.lical:ory meclianisrn by way of a three tier system in the Following manner: -

¶1Vending Sub-Committee (Site oF Spaces).,

¶2'- Vending Sub-Committee (Meath arid'Hygiene) and

¶3Vending Sub-Committee (Enforcen-ieiTt). J.S. . She stated that tlie creation of the aforesaid three Vending .Si.il.)-- I . Committees, Vending Committee (M.ain), as also of ttie appellate ai.ithorily wh-icii was constituted to redress' the grievances of tlie sgiial.l.ci-s, hawkeis, tiadeis, lesidents or any other' person against tlie .dc(.isioii'of 4?y}.3/2011,525^4/20X1.S' caimecCeiJinaiters . ' Pinje.13of21l the Vending Committee(Main), was pjacecl before the SupremeCotiit fui considerationand the,said three tier adjudlcatorymechanismwas duly •i - ^ , approved in the judgn'ient of Gainda Pvarn (suiJEcLl-j . • .

¶17Per contra/ learned coLinsels: Tor^ the ' petitioners/vendors,,wlio .appeared on diPPerent dates, vehemently opposed the. ciPoresaid stdnd •taken by the respondent/NLOMGand asserted'thatthe scheme floated hy 'the respondent/NDMCfor^ regulating^vending activities in i-ts Ji.ii-isdic:tu)n had lapsed on Z.O-Oe.ZOllin the absence of the enactmentof a legislation as per directionsof the Supreme Court in' the case of GmLid:aJ<anj.Xs.uiJici). a,nd as on date, there is no^ scheme lin existence.'• It was canvassed tliat the impfication of the aforesaid order of status-quo passed l.iy the Supreme Court on 15.07.2011 can oiply.meanIhat'.irrespective ot the lact whether the squatting ;is legal or !illegal,• tlie sairie be permil.teil to continue' on an 'as is where is' basis, and such status quo is tt? Ije maintained by all the parties,till a law is framed by the legislati.ii'e.

¶18Mr. B.B.: Saw-finey,' Sr. ; Advocate appieaiing for Ihe petitioners/vendors submitted that in the case of Gain da Pxarn (supi'a), the Supreme Court had directed that the appropriate government must enact a law on or before 30.06.2011 ,so that tfie tiawkers may I'jrecisely k'liow ;the contours of -their .rights, lience tine dispute redi'essal mef:hniii.SMi •provided for in the scheme mentioiped in tlVe aforesaid -judgnleni: curiid opeiate only upto

30.06.2011 and, thereafter, the said .scl"i€!.me would W.P.rc; 4743/2011, 5254/20X1 « connecl:e'^ nuiiters Pnga 14 ur 2!t automaticallystand lapsed. He statedithatno other.interpre:!l:atiorican l.>e •given to the orderdated 15.07.2011,directingmaintenanceo? in view oP the qUaliryingwoixls, "as it is obtainingtoday". He argued that if the scheme was continuing to operate, as claimed by Hie Inained counsel for the respondent/IMDMC,then there was no good reason fur the responderft/.MDMCto have refraine'd TronY holding,a draw oP lols, which was stated for the same day, i.e., 15.07.2011, and that fact oP the malter is that even the respondent/NDMChad understood the sLaLiis quo order to mean that there is no'scheme in.pJace aPter 30.6.2011, Por l.he reason • that in para 68' of the aPoresaid judgmient in the case oP .Gamdia,.Kaiji Csupr'a), all ttie writ petitions and thejinterim applications Piled before the Supreme Court were disposed oP withiclearand'speciPicdirectionslliat the problem of hawking .and street vendii'ig could be regulated by the •schemes framed by the PsIDMC a'hd MCD only upto .30.Ob.20.1 .1 and ,nol. thereaPter. It was asserted on behailP oP the petitioners/vendoi .s ttiat as on date, the directions oP the SLipi'erne .Court that s(:al:us quo is lb be n'laintained by the parties can only be given one "ihterpretal.ion, which is ttiat till a law is. ultimately enacted' by the Parlian'ient, iri'espectiye np Iheii legal status, all the petitioners/vendiors would be permitted l:u continue squatting/hawking at.the sites that liave been occupied by ti'iern. - ' .l.y. .InsoPar as the composition oP:the dispLite i"edressal mecl;i;ini.'.ni is concei ned, learned .Senior Advocate; Por tl'ie petitioners .subnlittei.l .tlial, contrary to •the understanding op the respondent/MDMC, l.he scheme VV.F.(CJ47-43/2011,5254/2011 &connecl.edmatters • - Page 15 iyf Jf.i I . reproducedat paras.72and 73 in Llie ^judgrnenl:in Che case ol' Gainda llEijn (supra), was not tlie one wlii'cli was acLLiaily recognized by tl'ie Siij^rerne Court, and rather it is the dispute i^ediressalscheme men.tioiiedin para lb. • of the aforesaid judgment i.e., "'a scheme for urban street vendois ['or. •IMDI^IC area as formulated in, the year ,2006, which, was ultimately-approved by the Supreme Court on ;17.05:2007, 'in the case of Sug|l'iir M,adan (supra,)., \A/hich is ttie scheme: wtiich finds mention speci[if:nlly in the following para 74 and is the one approved by tlie Suprenie Cnurl. I.I was contended that even otherwise, the NationaTCapital Territory oT tJelhi Laws (Special Provisions') Act, 2011 (hereinaPter referred to as '.'Speciiaill IP'iroiVisiioiiiisAclf) comes to the resctlie oP the petitioners Poi' the reason that sub-clause

(2) of Section 3 of tl:ie Special Provisions Act iiiaiidal.es maintenance oP sCatus:' quo • as on. 01.01.2006; notwithstanding any •judgment,.'decree or order of any cqurt, in respect oP encroai:.:iin.ient or unautl'ioi'ized development. Thus, ijt was subri'iitl.ecl on ];)ehalf cif the I petition,ers/vendors that they v\/ere entitled to grant oP-interim p.)rc)leelion till ttie enactment oP a legislation to regulate hawking/vending acl.ivil:iesin urban streets in Delhi on the basis of! the National Policy on L)rl,)ai'i .Sl.reet Vendors, 2009 framed on 17.06'.2009':andthe Special ProvisionsAc:t.

¶20With reference to the Special Prcn/islons Act, learned .Soimii Advocate for the petitioners stated that the phrase, "uiiaullionzed development-used in dfe definition clause has to be seen in II,e san.e conl:extas the one in which the phrase"encroachment"has treen delincd, wherein 1t is mentioned that putting, up or'temporary, semi-ten-ipxirary,oi • permanentstructure for residential use or commercial use or any ol.liei use, and the placement,of goods on :the.pav&ments by .the petitionersis liable to be termed as unauthorized ijise for n-iaintainingstatus quo undei .the Special Provisions /-\ct. Much emphasis was laid on tlie averments • made by the respondeht/MDMCin its.interim application lulled i;)efoie the . Supreme Court in Gainda Fiahi's case.: (supra) in'July 2011, to suljmil.thai: • the respondent/NDMCjtseif had stated in the .said applicatioii.-that the scheme had lapsed and therefore, the only interpretation that can be ^given to the status quo order passed by the Supreme (,:o:i..iii: on

15.07'.20;l.l call be that no, scheme would exist after

30.(,)0.2.(.) 1.1 and thus, the benefit of the Special Provisions /Act oOght to be extended to the petitioners. He .submitted that the phrase 'street vendors' fias been clearly defined under the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2,0f.)'J. • Reliance was placed in the case oP Piatri Vyapar Mandal Delhi Mlogd.) vs, MCD-Town Hall Ors. reported sis (2009) 12 SCC and the provisions of the Special Provisions /fct to subrnit that even ttie Supienie. Court had' recognized the fact that the Special Provisions Act is the only Central law governing the field ancjl it would have primacy over Statutes and administrative orders. ^It is thus .stated that the provis .. of the NDHC Act cannot be invoked by the respond.ent/l\ll3MCas tlic saici Act is not in -consonance with Article 96 of the Constitution of India and furthermore,•the Special Provisions Act being valid till the r;n..l of X • ' .December2011, no orders in derogaUpn 0!" the provisionsoP Ihe .:,nii.l Ad can be passed. , - . . . , . I 21. i^r. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate: -appearing foi" soirie of (the i ' • petitioners/ventlorssought to embellish the subi-nisslonsof Mr.,Snwhney, i. Sr.Advocate and relied on the orders passed in mf"IP,.(C) :il.449V-'!^«.9 ^ni-Hlprl. Mnhd" Tsmail vs. NDMC 8--: Ors.. to urge that the "'Ar)pevllate I Authority", constituted under the dispute redressal mechanism lor the i . _ NDMC area, tias not been functioning, whicti Pact he 5;tated is bornr^ oul i Prom a perusal of the order dated 08.03,2011 passed in the nPnresaUl' i case, wherein the Court took notice oP tlie claini oP tl'ie petitioner/veni.lor j therein to the ePPect that inspite qP orders passed by I'lie Appellate i . • • • ; Autliority allowing squatting at a particular site, till a final determinntioi) I. by tlie Vendii'ig Committee as tO' his eligibility, the respondent/NDML: and the police were disturbing his activi'ties. In the aforesaid oi'der; the sixiten'ient.oP the, counsel, for the respondent/l'\IDMC was rectirdecL.l.o the ePPect that the appellate-authority, whose order was being relied upon by .the-petitioner therein, was constituted initially Porlhe MOD aieas and later started'functioning, for the IMDMC areas as well Por ttie reason tiiat at that tiiTie, there was no separate.appellate authority Por the.NDMIC areas, but subsequently, in accordance with tlie scheme approved by j.iie .Suprenie I COLiit, l:lie Cliciiiperson,,IMDMC had consLituLed, ci sepcirati::-.-ipiiellnle j aud-ior-rty for the NDMC areas, Thererore, the 'appellate outhnrHy i appointedearlierhad ceased.toHave jurisdictionqua tlie l\iDMC area.'.. II i-f was Ihus contended on behalf or the •petidoneKs/vendois thai, tin-aforesaid order cleaiiy indicates tl'iat tl'ie appellate aLithoiity in the Ml.-'I IC-areas is not Functioning.

22.. Reliance was also placed on tl'ie iriinutes of. the nieetlng of the Vending Committee-dated 11.03.2010, to claim that IP the Pact oP whethei s there wa.s actual squatting/vending was veriPied by the Cornn^iitte-ennd.il the names oP the petitioners/vendors: Pigui-ed ih the eligibility list pre|.)aretI by the respondent/NDMC Por holding Itlie di'aw oP lots, then it did not lie in the mouth••oPthe responrlent/MDMC to claim that the petitioners, who had been veriPied' and found to be eligible, v/vere .not entitled to .S(|unt at various sites in the MDMC area aPter 30.06.2011.

¶23In rebuttal, counsel Por the respondent/NDMC dis|:uU,ed tPie contentions oP the petitioners/venddrs and while;, reiterating lier eaiiie.r submissions, asserted that the peititioners di:d not liave any legnlly enPorceable right, created on the basis oP the eligibility list drawn l.i^/' MDMC, Por claiming, grarit oP interim order's in theii'"Pavour. Slie agrii|i lePerred to paras 68, 69, 7b,. 75 and 78 oP the jljdgmerit in tl'ie r.risr: iJf GdLildcr..J^ajT}^_(_su|3!^to emptiasize tl'iat when the aPoresoid paras nre lead collectively, it is clear tl'iat the petitioners cannot cl'aini an' entitlement to any interim orders as sought by theni in the I'iresent pioceedings. She'fui'ther stated ;that even ottierwise, the Sperlal Provisions Act relied upon .by the petitioners.has duly recognised the. m.P.(C) 52S^/2U11 S connecf.er/ ''failfers I'-'isijf; :l.9 ftf 2H ,' • 1 r' •. schemes prepared by the-local authorities In tlie National Capital Teiiilory ; of Delhi for reguiation oP urban streejt vendors. ' To substantia.te the ;;;ai(j submission, she drew the attention ot tliis Coui-t-to, the preamble of the aforesaid /Act, which mentions the Tact that all the scliemes prepared l.)y the local authorities in the Natiorial "Capital Territory of Ijelhi, lor .regulation of urban street vendoi's in'accordance witlY the National l'(.jlicy• on" Urban Street Vendors, 2009-and bhe Master Plan for Deltii 2021, have been in'ipl-ernented and' Turther• that; more time is rec|uired I'or [jroper implementation of the schemes regarding ha.wkers and • urban sl:ree-i.. vendors. . •

¶24A specific reference was macle by the leai'ned coLinsel the respondent/NDMC to Section 2(l)(c) :of the Special Provisiorrs Act, wtiich defines the phrase "encroactiment" to claim that it does not cover the petitioners .herein, who are squatters., Further reference was made -l.o [lie provision of Section .3 of the Special provisions Act, wliich contain.--; a obbtante clause, to state that status quo with regard to tl'ie ericroac •or unauthorized development as on '01.01.2006, mentioned in l.he .said provision, was in . the' context of the definition of the i.iliiase.s .encioachment"and "unautfioilzeddevelopment"set out in tlie definition clause at Sections 2(l)Cc) and 2(l)Ci) respectively of the Special ProvisionsAct and thus, the petitidners/vendorsdid not qualiiy under tfie aforesaidenactmentfor claiming prol^ectionas none of the ingredienisset out in the provisionsof the aforesaidenactmentare found to exi.t in their .case. .1.1: was submitted tlnat the-Special'Provisions Act, wiiicli unpie into ePPect in tlie year 2007 and has be^en extended. Pron'i tin'ie to-tiine nnd . lastly, till Decembei' 2011, does not give permission to person.^ t(.' ifv slaii: any activity once they have been removed by the civic niitl'iority and similarly,, the Scheme of 2009 does not entitle the reg.isl:ran.ts to -.scitint unless th;ey have been allotted a spefclHc site. In supijoii: of tlie nlV.)! e.scii(I subn-iission, reliance was place on tljie judgment in tlie case of MCp vs, ! Gurn am Kaur reported .as

(1989)!-.! SCC lOl! ' For tlie |.Jur|.)oso oF interpreting, the meaning of the phras^e,""structure", refei-ence was mnde to the judgment oF the Suprenie. • Court in .the case oF ..Muii.iLijjalj Corporation oF Greater Bombay & 0rs. vs. Indian Oil Corporatioir LtLl, reported as AIIR 1991'SiC

¶686For the purpose oF understanding l:he expression, 'status quo'/reference was made to tlie judgi'neht in the c.a.se of" IVIessrs'.Bharat Coking Coal Limitecllvs. State of F^iliar fSt Ors. reported as 1987 (Sopp) see 394'to submit tljiat In ordinary legal connotation, the • teim status quo' imiplies"the existing state of tl'iings at any given i.joini: of time-. • 'i :ib.- As for the National Policy on IJ-rban Street Vendoi's, counsel For il'ic . » i. . I - - • • I Iespondent/NlJlviCstated that both, the 2004 policy and the 200:) piolicy^ ,; Find-mentionin the decision of the Supreme Court'in tlie case oF Ggiiida ;• iiailLl^lJra) and it was only aFten taking into consideration,tlle said • policies, did the Court directed the institutionalization'of urhnn shoeC . vending thro.ugh legisla.tion. It was further stated that at the' time of j P.rc; 4743/50II. S2S4/20J.1 cannecCe,n,sU:ers ' ^ ' cleliverinci the juclgmenl: dated 8.10.2010, the Supreme Coui't took iiotice of the.MCT oC Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) /Act, 2009, whicl'i was valid Lipto 3-0.12.2010, apart from njoticing ttie 'Model Street Vendoi's (Protection-ot Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 20U'..-) introduced by the Governrneht of ll.ndia, r^^iini.^try,.;of flousing (.'i Hil.ian' Poverty Alleviation. She'stated that'nothing new is. now being sufiniitted by the petitioners/vendors herein,; for ttie present' petitioii.'-; tn tie • entertained for any purpose-whatsoever and all the grievances raised by the petitioners can' easily' be ;• addressed' . before , tl'ie Vending CorniTiittee/appellate authority under the scheme'relating to urlj.nn slieel: vending in ;the IMDMC area, which fora continue to ren'iain functional, even after 30.6.2011. • '

¶26Tl'iis Court has heard these m,atters at length since l'7.fJ.20'L I., un • different dates. Various counsels for the petitioners/vendois and l.lio Standing Counsel for the respondeir)t/l\IDMC tiad addressed tl'ie (;:oi.ii't'. , .Their respective arguments have been taken note of. Botir sides linve .made strenuous efforts to , explain! what the •status quo order dated.

15.7.2011 passed by-'tlie .Supreme Court iii the case of Giajiida .RanTfjsupra)implies, (he leiLynotiTo!f tire ai-guments addressed on behalf of the petitioners/vendors is that the status quo order read wilfi tfie qualifying.W.ords, "as it is obtainingtoday", suffixed to the order, can .only be read^to imply that as on date, i.e., 15.7.2011,' there was no sc:lienie operationalin the NDMC areas to regulate vending activitiesand till n law. careers -n ' is LiltiiTiately~enacted by the legislature, all the petitioners, irrespective of their legal status, can' continue squatting/hawking different sites that have been occupied by them. It is also asserted that in the teeth-of the •status quo orders passed by the Supreme Court, the respondent/MDMC in collusion with the police authorities, is threatening to illegally .remove the •petitioners/vendors fromdifferent sifes, which is" detrimental, adverse, harassing and belligerent to those, who have been found eligible by 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 pending at the end of the respondent/NDMC. The • second limb of subrnissions made by the learned counsels for' the petitioners/vendors was that the Special Provjsipns Act would additionally come to the rescue of the •petitioners/vendors, which also requires, maintenance' of status quo as existing on 01.10.2006, till the end of December, 2011. '•

¶27. On the other hand, the 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 in terms of the decision of, the Supreme Court,in the case of Gaind:a Ramfsupra"),the subsequent order 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 bedisturbed,-until the rights ofthe partiescan be finally determined through legislation. It was submitted that while W.P.(C)4743/2011,5254/ZOZl&connectedmatters , ' Page 23 of28 t; i • passing the status quo order on 1S.07.2011,.•the. Supreme CouH: wns conscious ,,of the fact that tiie Parliament^ had yet to enact a comprehensivelegislationto regulate urban street vending and in such .circumstances, it goes without saying that it was ttie intent of" the (..ouii. that the entire dispute redressal mechanism as recognized in the case ol Hainda Ran'ifsupra) would continue'to remain in ..operation, so as to regulate the urban street vending in.the-NDMC area, till the legislationin that; regard .is enacted. Further, it was stressed tliat the !-.pec.ial • Provisions Act did not provide any protective urnbi'ella to tiie I'jetitic.iners, Srwhose squattin.g activities . neither Pell under tlie delinition oP ;"encroachment", nor under "unauthorized development", .it was fuiiiier asserted •ttiat •even otherwise pending an appropriate legislation; the MDMC /Xct wa.y availableas a fall back option and the relevant|.,)ru.visions •'-in the said enactment would continue to regulate street.vending nclivity iii the NDMC'area and-the petitioners/vendors could not claim, a vested light to. squat at any site of their own. • .

¶28From the above, it is . apparent that arguments and : coiinl.:cr-argunnents have been raised by botti'sides on tfieir respective veisions of the' iTieaning and the effect of the status quo order dated l..'r.7...'.f):l.1; passed by the Supreme "Court. It is also very a|".iparent, that the meaning souglit to-be attributed by both, sides as to the implication (,)f Llie .said status quo Order, is dian'ietricallyopposed to each other. Mot only i.his, both sides are at a tangehton the Pacturn of tPie pendencyor ol.herwi.seoP ^25^/2a.fl.(Sca,7r,ectec/;r7a«e,-s ' tl'ie interim applications filed before, the Supreme Court fjy bolh, tfie V applicants/vendors and the respdndent/MDMC,for clarificatioii.j,oii ^wliiclr the' .aforesaid order came to-be passed as-it, is the stand f.'t tlie respohdent/NDMC tfiat the 'afoi^esaid applications' were n.ot disfiosed o-t w.hile passing the order dated 15.7.2011. Tha-parties are poi.es apiart on the. question -of import -of the status quo order,' and tlie-effect -of l.li,e observations "made by the" Suprerrie Court ' in tlie case of Gaiiida Pxamfsupi'a') as. regards the-approval" of IMDI^'IC scheme. They ai c oLst.) ot loggerheads on the composition of the adjudicatoi'y mechanisrn in I.lie NDMC jurisdiction and, the manner of its' functioning, as also the i(ientil;y of tlie scheme which is validly operating in the IMDI'^IC.areas for regulating, .urban-street vending, wtiich had all been subject matter of considei a.tion before the Suprenie Court in the aforesaid case. The other is.sues agitated by the parties-,, stai'ting-from the interpretation of tlie vaiioi.is observations made by the Supreme Court in the';,3foresaid judgment, -t'o" the formulation of ttie scheme as apjDroved by the Supren'ie Court in the' case of Sudfiir Madan rsupra), tq tlie composition of tlie (li.spul.es redressai mechanism'andits validity as also the'nieaning of tlie sl.al.us quo .order, are all in a turmoil as both tl'ie parties have stoutly defended th.eii lespective stands which are coitipletelyat variance wil:l") each (.)l.lier." The only .common ground shared by!the parties is the factum of passiiig lecent judgment dated 08.10.2010 in tlie cose of GLifiillLf ,.Pi§lij(su|Drci,).and the subsequentstatus quo ord.er dated 15,."7.20.t;l pas.'-;ed ^ W-S-.(C).A'i743/201.t^5254/201Xfli. cdnnectecfnwlj.ers 2S o"/' by b'le buprerne Lgurt. • • , •

¶29The roLintainheacl oP the clispuba in the ••'presenl; cases theielore remains tlie staixis quo order .dated 15-7.20.1.1:passed by tlie biipi-cnn; Court. The issue winich i's sougl'it to be acjitated bePoi'e this L.omi. i^; I.hat having regard to the status quo order, whether a'stay order ouqlli. I.o l.)e granted by this Court in Favour oF the petitioners/vendorsas prayed fur by tl ien'i, ii"respective. oF •ttieir legal status, thus Foi biddini.:) Ihe respondent/IMtOI^'IC From^ ttireatening and/or removing tl)em Fi'nm the diPFerentsites occupied Iby theiti in tli.e NpMC areas.. In other wortls, thi.s • Co'uit is being called upon to examine ti;e meaning, sco|:ie and elFor.t of the status quo order dated

15.07.2,011. On the question ol Ih.iw I.o ascertain tj'ie implication oF a status qu. -- order:passed by a couii:, in Ihe case oF Messrs Bharat Coking Coal.Lin'iitod fsupraL ibwas observed tiy tl)0 Supren'i.e Court that the expression', 'stains quo' is undoubtedly a lei in oF ambiguity aiid at tin'ies, gives rise to doubt an-d diFFiculty and in case any •party ha'p^-any doubt on -tl'ie n|ieaning and tl)e. einfect oF -l:he Glnl.ii.s i|uo order, the .-pi-opercourse For such a Rartv\A/ould be to approaoh tlir,^(:oui t that had passed the status quo order, to see,lf;,clar.iFications. -JO. In tl'ie case at I'land, -while seeking io ride ttie wave oF l.lie aForr;.soid status quo order, the parties liave chooen lo overlook one i,m|iorlnnl Tactor, which is that a status quo order operates oii botli sides. Ilio. .'Supreme Court.l'iaspassed orders requiring both .$ides to maintain stnl.us •Vir.P.fCJ4743/2011^ 525'4/2a:ll lA connected inslteis faye 26 (/T 2H F -• " quo. Ohce such an order of U'ie Supi'enie Court is on record,'l.he sajiie iiol. only binds all. the parties to the adjudication, and all the parlie;-:.;ci-vil or judicial who are required to act in accdi'dance-'With thie said orf..loi huL it equally binds the High Court Troiri interfering .vA/itli sucii an ortler, ar; the said order has been passed in litigations bePore the i'lighest Ljjurt (.if-tlle .land. v ,

¶31The orders' or the'Suprerne Court'are on record. The sl.al.us (|U() order is a clear signal to the Higtr Court as well, ..to avoid granliny any order, including an interim order, when th.e Suprerne Court lia.s diiecl.ed. •for status, quo to be n'raintainech In such circun'istances, iP this Couii: was to grant a stay order in Pavour bP the petitioners/vendors, arrayed hePui e •it, it would be tantamount to negating the orders' oP the Supiemf-! (^(.luil,, which require, the parties'to maii'itain status quo pending eiia(.:l:nlenl: of appiopriate legislation. IP eiLTier oP the parties were unclear alK.iiil. the int6:ipi elation oP the status.qud order, it was Por tl'vern to Piave applied to t.lie ..jupieme Court POr clarificationsthereoP. Additionally, I.lie reliancx:.: • placed by the jaetitioners/vendorson the .Special Provisions-Act.seeking interMT) legal sanctity to the placement oP goods by tl iem .on ' Ihe pavements, by terming it as. encroachn-ient/unauthorizedi.iso, as recognized under the. said Act and their contehtion that tlie Supieme Court had recognizedthe fact that the Special Provision.":Act |.,'t,lieohiy Cenlrallaw having primacyover otherStatutes,ar(= atso niatl,ers-||,nlthe 5254/201X a connect^,! ,natters • P:nge 27 uf 2H .j ri petiticjueis/vendors ought to tiave placed before Uie Suprerne Courl while:; seeking rlarificBtions oF the status quo order. ' It would therefore-'I)e advi^^able foi the petitioners/vendoitsas also the' respondent/NDMc:i.o appioach the Supreme Court and; make their submissions there as regards their grievances, However, as both, parties insisted tlinl (heir ,anguments.betaken note of and their submissionsbe placed On re<:oi-cl, some pains have been taken to do the needful. ,32. In view of the aforesaidfacts and circumslipces,this Courl is r.f the opinion that it will not be appropriatejfor it to graritstay orders in the face of the status quo order dated ;L5.07,20;i.1 passed by the-Supreme(.THirt. Ib.is re-iteratedthat any such order shiall be an .anti-thesisto .the oi dors of •the SupremeCourt, which musfbe respectedboth, in letterahrl spirit. In. ^such circumstances;the-presentpet;itions are disposed'oP by declining grant of any interim orders to the petitioners. However, liberty is gi nnted to both.th.eparties to apply to the Supreme Courtfor aclarificationof tlie ' . |Lo oi.dei dated .to.07.2011 passed in the case of Gairida Kan.i (su,2r^. The partiesare left to bear tiheirown costs. OCT rkb qO L 2011 IICOII-|ill...H.) MtiDGI.-- '-'aye .2^ 1,1" 2U

t IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 + w.P.rc^ 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. 5262/2011. 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. # mm V# dli -W 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. 2602/2011. 3052/2011. 3181/2011. 3185/2011. 3189/2011. 3196/2011. 4340/2011. 4342/2011. 4343/2011. 4344/2011. 4345/2011. 4349/2011. 4350/2011. 4352/2011. 4354/2011. 4356/2011. 4358/2011. 4359/2011. 4360/2011. 4361/2011. 4362/2011. 4363/2011. 4364/2011. 4365/2011. 4366/2011. 4367/2011. 4368/2011. 4369/2011. 4370/2011. 4371/2011. 4372/2011. 4373/2011. 4374/2011 4375/2011. 4377/2011. 4387/2011. 4388/2011. 4389/2011. 4391/2011. 4392/2011. 4393/2011. 4395/2011. 4396/2011. *4398/2011. 4398/2011. 4399/2011. 4400/2011. 4402/2011. 4404/2011. 4405/2011. 4406/2011. 4407/2011. 4408/2011. 4409/2011. 4410/2011. 4412/2011. 4413/2011. 4414/2011. 5341/2011. 4847/2011. 4859/2011. 4887/2011. * w q m MM m 4990/2011. W.P.(C)4347/2011andconnectedmatters Page lofS 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. c I . 508^/2011r 5099/2011. 5114/2011. 5115/2011 ?!!!( ' 5129/2011. 5139/2011.. 5144/2011. 6708/7011 6825/2011. 6826/2011. 6827/2011 6901/2011, 6902/2011. 6903/2011. 6904/2011. 6906/2011, 6907/2011. 6908/2011. 6909/20ii^ !yj6919/2011, 6920/2011. fiQ^y^nn, 6922/2011. 6932/2011 and 5420/2011- m THE MATTERS OF Petitioner in W.P.fC) 4347/2011 KIRPALSWGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4559/2011 i: Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4593/2011 KUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C)4510/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(e) 4650/2011 »,» ' Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4651/2011 GANESH PRASA^D" Petitionerin W.P,(C)4827/2011 RHUPAI Petitionerin W.P.(C)4923/2011 c.inr-flh.1 Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5024/2011 NQHA SINGH AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5028/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4775/2011 RAM nA Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5247/2011 ,,1L. .7 Petitioner in W.P.fC) 5254/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5255/2011 Amn Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5257/2011 ^ Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5258/2011 ^AtJwDAT^ Petitionersin W.P.(C)5261/2011 snHAN^^li AMr?Snc Petitionersin W.P.(C)5262/2011 ^FHART in W.P.(C)5263/2011 .. Petitioner in W.P.fC) 5264/2011 MrrwiII alias LUCKY Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5277/2011 Mnm 7AWTn Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5292/2011 SIHAKEEf AHMFn Petitionerin W.P,(C)5312/2011 IMAND l<iqHnRF Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5317/2011 0^1^.. ••••• Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5402/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5403/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5405/2011 ratIP KUI^IAR RAO AND ORS Petitionersin W.P.(C)5408/2011 mart hac;am in W.P.(C) 5410/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5411/2011 aunnH^rf^ Petitionerin