Subhash Shrivastav v. Ndmc and Ors

order dated

15.07.20J.J., whi( h is the . bone of contention and is I'eproduced tierein.belovA/; "Heard leairied counsel for ttic applicani.s and |.K:rirsnd the record. cr'/!jreclei'l iiuit.f.e.rs • S iff Since•judgment oP Pl'iis Comt has so fcii nol l.ieen implemented, inasmuch as appropriaPe legislaPion has not been enacted by the competent legislature, we direct the parties to miaintain the status quo as it is obtaining today." It - was submission oP tlie learned counsel Poi" responde.nt/N|;)MCthat the aPoresaid order issued by the Supreme (..oui t, calling upon the parties to iriaiiitain stdtus quo as obtainini:) on P5.07.2011, can only be inteipreted to mean tl'iat the extensive-dire'liou;-. is.sued earlier,on 0P3.10.2.010,iii the case oP GajndcLJiainJsm ic|;)orted as' (2010) 10 see 715 shall continue to reniain in operadoii, including ttie adjudicatory mecPianisrn provided Pgi" tiy ttie NI3ML ii"i tlie si.;heme presented by it bePore tPie Supreriie Coui't and apTJioved in I.lie sail.I judgiTient, l;ill the appropi'iate government enacts a law Por rcujuK.iting urban street hawkers ai'id 5l;reet vei'idors. ' It was statei.l that .simply because tliedegislatui'e Pias not'ei'iacted a law in this regard on or lieli,)ie

30.06.201:1,, as directed in aPoresaid judgment; it cauunl P)e contended by tPie petitioners/vendors tPiat there exists a vacuum an(,l l.he said vacuum can no longei' be Pilled t,ip by continuing to regulale Ihe vending activities in ttie NDMC jurisdiction in tPie maniier as sei: out in the aPoresaid judgment. ^1. To give a brieP backgiouiid oP the dispute, learned counsel Poi' i"espondenl;/l\IDMC walked this Court througli son-ie pi on-iinei-it decisions oP I,tie .Supreme Court rendered Piom Linie to time, whlcPi I'elate to pavenir:nl. W.P\(CJ /201/2011 coivrrecred P'pnye iff •:i : ; .5C|ual:l;ers/l'iawke.rs,sljarting Itoiti the decision in Ihe case ol' Sudan .L.ii)yh vs,,.NDMC..&^^^^ reported as (1:998) 2 SCC 727, the interim older <lnted

03.03.200G.-passed by the Supi-eine Court in VisfdP'..(.C) 1699/ .ll.ya/ entitled .Siidhir Madan Ik Qrs. vs. MCP, ttie Pinal judgment in tlie ("rise o( SLIcltiiI" Madan (supra) reported as {200gi) 'i7 SCC b'9/ ai id .Ia.slly, tiio judgmentdated 08.10.20:1.0passed in the case of Gainda.Rnni,(sLiprq).

¶5I_earned counsel foi" tlte lespondent/NDIMC vehernently'opripsed I.hi? prayer of the petitioners/vendors foi" grant oP interim ordeis leslinining ttie lespondent/MDMC.rrom removing tliem from tiie sites occupied l.iy them till the enactment oP an appropriate legislation, in terms nf the directions issued by the Supreme Couit in the., case oP Uainda jlain (syiDra). She particularly rePerred to tlie observations maiJe l.iy tlie Supreine Court, in paras 40 and '-U oP tPie judgment in tt)e case oP Sodaji .Sjngh .(sup!;a), whicl'i dealt witli tPie immediate eviction oP unanthoii/:.ed sqi.iattei's/Piawkers and laid ei'nptiasis on tlie Pact that in tPie saiii ca.Sf:, tPie Supreme Court had directed remoVrTil oP unauthorized squattei s/l inwlcei without awaiting Pinal allotment oP sites to be allotted to eligil.'le claimant:.' at tPie places recommended by tlie Thareja Committee or suggesled by tl-ie MIDMC. "6. Again, in ttie interim order dated

03.01-!.2006 passed in Sudhji; Madan's case fsupi'a'), l:Pie Pollowing oLiservation made by the .'.iupreme.' Court was tiigPiligPited by the counsel Por-the respondeiit/NIDMt::: • ' fCJ 4743/2011, 5254/2011 ffi cortnecCetl matters fflt/e 'f ifT2.fr • \(b "While we. uni;lei,i;ai<e this-exfercise, we ciirecl: Llie ALI til ori ties to see to it tliat those persons, wlio, rii e cai'rying on liawl<ing activities or who are squatting on pui^lic land witliout any autliority, even in accordance with the present day scheme in Force, are reinovod torttiwith. Tliis includes unauthorized hawking, squatting on puiiilic streets, footpaths a.nd putilic |;iaii<s, including playgi'ound. V\/e direct tlie Dellii Administi ation to take steps immediately in collaboi'ation witli i'^^lL.i.^ and MDMC with necessai'y assistance from Deitii I'olice to clear roads, streets, footpajihs, park's etc. I'.iy LI na LI t I'lo rized o ccliid a nts7 s c|ua tl:e rs/ lia w l<e rs." V.

¶7As to the' judgment dated :L7.0.5'.2007 rendered in l:he case ot Sudhjr ,,Madji!X_Lsui2iaL'"nuch emphasis was laid by tlie counsel [or tlie respondent/NDI^'IC on paras to 30 and .35, wliich arc leproduced liei einbelow for ready reference:• ' "28. Tlie Mew tDellii i^-'lunicipal Committee itas al.so submitted its Scheme. We I'lave considered tlie Sctieme-' submitted before us. Tlie area which Palls under l\li;)M(,; does iiot create problems sucli as those in tl'ie ai'ea;, under MCD. J-lowever, in ttie said .Scheme rePerence has been made to persons who' do not liave permission under Section

22.5 or licence under Section oP the MDMC Act, 1994 but wlio are unauthorisedly continuii iq to carry on business as liawkers/sti'eet vendors. 'They, liave been described as ttiose who are "tolerated" in I.he •MDMC ai'ea. We Pait to understand why ,any pei'son who violates the law should be tolerated. Eitlier they sliould be compelled to obey tlie law or the. law/ may be suitably amended, iP it is Pound to ci'eate undue liardsliip. 1 he problems need to be-addressed by the legislature or' I.he 'rulemaking authority. We, ther"ePore, o'bserve that IP il is Pelt tliat the persorrs \a/Pio Pall in tliis category 'i ec| special protection, tPie Act may be SLiitably arrreiided cover their cases oi' else tlie nuiiibei' oP such illeqr squatters may increase Pi'om time to M/'-P-rc; 4-74-3/2011, 5254/20X1 SJ. coiine,:S:ed c l.o Payi?. 6 ' p/" 2.H .

¶29Thei'e. has been no serious objecLioi") I'.o l:lie bcho submitted by i'vlDIMC whichi is a cornjDrehensive schei Certain directions tiave, however, been sougl'il; Poi" (i' tl'iis Court. We approve ,the Sci'ieme submitteii liy IMDI^^C- '

¶30It is submitted bePoi'e us ttiat tPie Scl'i'emes which have been approved Liy l.Piis Court must be subject to any A\ct or rules that may be Prarned ii) consoi'iance vA/ilii IMational P-'olicy on Urban Street Vendois. I.t cjoes wittiout saying that we Piave approved the Sciiemes a:; prarned by IMCD and IMDMC. I.P tl'te legislature intei'vencs and frames anotl'iei sctierne oi' regulations govei'uiriy sucli Schemes, that will certainly suiiersede IJie Schen'ies prepai"ed by MCtl and NDMC. It is well settled ttiat any administrative action is always subject to law •that may be Prarned by tlie competent legislature.

¶35Subject to aPoresaid rnodiPicatioi'is/cl'ianges in the Schemes submitted .by MCD anci MDMIC, tlie sanin ai'e approved. The said authorities stiall now l;al<(;^ appropriate steps to im|:)lement tPie Sclieme Poii.hwil.11. In case oP any difPiculty Paced by tlieni in imfilernenl.ing the scPiemes, tliey sliall Piavt-": tlie liberty to a|')ply to ttiis Cou rt."

¶8Lastly, in the recent judgment in tite case oP ,GaJiiclLL.KQ.t!i(supra), learned counsel Per ttie resporident/NDMC speciPically relied upon pnra.s 30, 32, 50 to 66 to state tPiat the Supreme Court was coi'isclou:. op the Pact ttiat a stiuctured regulation anil legislation is urgently i-c(|uiictl lo conti^jl and regulate tlie fundamental riglit oP liawking. Stie also poinh--.d out ttiat tlie three tier disputes i^edressal mechanism set (jul. in aPPidavit Piled by the then Chaii [.lersoii oP the NDI^-'IC was tal<en. iiote oP by ttie Supreme Court in para 72 oP the aPoresaid judgment and in paia'/ :, ii was tl'ien observed as belovv;- V\i.P.(C) S25'-l/20:!J B coiin.p.ijfsciniailers S'sge. 7 of^2lf "73. In paragraph 12 'of the'alTidavil: il: has been sl.al.ed that there stiall be an /Appellate /Authority whicti shall attend to redressal oP cjiievances ot squatters, hawkers, traders, residents or any other |::iei'son by Inearing appeals against the decision of the Vendinq Committee (l^iain). Paragi'aph 12 oF tliat affidavit is sol. out below:- ' . There shall be an /Appellate /Auttiority. On the Porwarding oP. petitions received by . Ctiairperson, ttiis /\utl"iority sliall attend lo redressal oP giievances oP squatters,- hawkers, traders, residents or any oti'ier pei^son. Ilie /Authority sPiall also liear appeals against' Ihe decision of Vending Comrhittee

(Main). t?)e(.:isions oP ttiis /Authority unless challenged bePoi e a l ligher Forum 01" in any Competent Court, sliali be linal. Tliis Autliority sliall L)e initially lieaded by a iJeisorr appoii'ited by ttie Chairpei'son having at least years legai or judicial background. Ther'e can bc! more than one'member-in tl'iis /Autliority."

¶9/APtei; mai<ing.tlie aPoresaid observations, in paras 74 to ./(,iol judgment, the Supreme Court went on to observe as beioW':- ."74. .in tiie -said aPPidavit, wliicli was aPPirmed bePore ' this Court on 24'-'' /August,.2010. it lias been stated i.hal; l\ipi'^''IC sliail comply witti tl;ie orders wtiich would lie " passed by tlie acljudicatoi'y mechanisni contemplated in tlie scheme and whicli has been approved by tliis Couil Por-the Ni3I^C ai'ea, unless sucli orders ai"e, made subject . riiatter oP cliallenge bePoi'e a liigPier Pon.irn or in any other com lie tent Court.

¶75In view oP such schemes; tlie, hawkers, sr|uatteis and vendoi-s must abide by tlie Dispute l-ledressal scheme mentioned above. Tliei-e should not be any direct approach to this Court by way oP PresI • I/As, bypassing tire [)i5pute Fledressal Mecli. provided in the sc|ierne. ) Wi.P.{C}-1..-43/2011,5'154/"20:11 c.ojinectecl niatlers ' I'ivye i't vf 23

¶76However, bePnre 30"' June, 201J., l:he a|:ipi"0|..)riaLe Governinent is to enact a law on ba.sls oP tPie l.:'ill mentioned above, or r)n tPie basis oP any arnendi'nenl. tliereoP so tinat-tlie: hawl<;ers ii'iay precisely know contours of their riglits." .10. It was ttiUs sciLiqht to be contended on behalP ol respondent/NDMC ttiat ttiere can be no vacuum as Par as lequlrition ol' trade of street hawkers/vendors In Lhe IMDi^lC iurisdictioi) is concerned ani.l ttie failui'e on tPie part oP the legislature to abide by the tiri'ieline .'.(d: out by ttie Supreme Court in the case oP Gain da P.am fsupra), by putl.nn:} in place a sl:atute on or bePore

30.06.2011, cannot be inLei'pi'etei.l by lhe petitioners/vendors to mean ttiat Uiey can continue their liade ucihindered at any place oP ttieii-cinjice in [he NDMC juri,silii::l ion. In an ui'ii'eguiated manner and witliout any otistruction or otijection honi lln^ NDMC-IJ.. Learned counsel Por the i-espondent/IUIDMC pai'ticuiai ly lePeiied lo paras /4 and 7b oP tPie aPoresaid judgment to state that di.s|)uPe redressal scheme, rioticed by ttie Supieme Court in paia /P. wa:,- lhe one that was legally Punctioning in I\IP)|V|C jurisdiction and which was tal<:en iK)te oP by the Court in the preceding para 74. In cjtPier woids, slie stated that the scheme as set out in the aPPidavitdated .24.08.2010, Piled by the then Chairpersoi;i oP NDMC bePoie the Supreme Couit in Gaiiida K, (supi d)_, was the one \A/hicP) was Pinally apprcived L)y the .-lUpir Couit. ohe Pui thei submipled tliat assuming, without admitting, lhat P/IA/-.(c; 525^!/20.l..t co"aecfe./ nu.lt^.rs 9 of 7H dispute recli'essal sclierne set out tjy the I^IDMC tiad iapsc-^icl on 11, • 5 claimed by tl'ie petitioners, Llien tiie l\IDI^1C Act provides ai'i rii.lei,|uat(-.! Pallljack to ensure orderly ri'ianagement oT vendors in tl'ie area. Specific leference was made in tiiis regard to tlie provisions contained in ScMjiorrs 221, 22-^1, 225 and ,226 of tiie said Act.

¶12It was Turtlier argued iDy ttie counsel tor tiie i'e.spondent/Mt)M(' l.lial: tlie application Tiled by tlie IMDI^'IC before ttie Supieme Court in .Inly 2t)l I, praying inter alia foi"^ exterrsion of Lime to regulate liawkeis/s(.|i.ial.teis in tl'ie IMDMC area, as per' Ltie scheme mei'iliioned in tl'ie 'judgment in Gaiilda. Ram's case fsupra), till tl'ie enactmei'it of a law by tlie leqislati.ire in that regard, tiad not yet been rinally dispccsed of by Ihe Supreme Com 1. a I.'the tiine of passing of the status quo order dated

15.07.20:1.1 and similarly, tlie other application filed by one of tl ie fiawkei's/vendoi s pi aying Inlr.i' aiia for restraining the respondenl:/l\IDMC from granting I'ehijazari righl..s to tfie winners of the'-lucky draw oP lots foi' allotment, wliich was to be I'leld on

12.05.2011-oi" any elate thereafter, was also pr;ii(.liiig consideration before the Supreme Court. Hence, no finality couh.l be attached to the order dated 15.7.2011 whicl'i can only be consii.leied an interim measure till tiie final dis|;.iosal of tfie al'oresaid applii:al:i(..in:.;di the enactinent of a legislation.

¶15On n-iei-its, learned counsel for the respondeiit/MDMCrefei ied l.o the-affidavil. dated 01.08.z011 filed l.)y tlie L")ii"ector (L:nfoicemeiil.), IMI.ij^^ir, \W.P.(C) 4/43/2011, 5254/2011 ff, caiinecl'et/ innlj.eis ' Page lO <.tf '.fit wherein it-was stated that pursuaiit to tiie pulMlic notice issued hy Uio. IMDMC inviting applications uinder tlie NIDMC Urban Street Vending Scheme in ti'ie yeai' 2007, the re5pondent/i!\IDMC liad received d.;Uj/ applications. Ttie documents reguired by the applicants Tor registration under the Scheme included a prooP of age, documentary prooP/aflidavit Poi' the purpose of annual i.ncorne, proof of residence, proof in su|.>poi1. of special categories lilce tiandicapped, Kaslimiiri rnigi'ants etc. and proof of' squatting in the NDiMC area, if any. . Jn para 4 of ttie aforesaid allidavit, following criteria approved/adopted by ttie Vending Coiriiniitee tn shortlist the eligible applicants is set out;- "4. That the criteria apiJioved/adopted by tlie Vending Con'imittee to stiortlist tlie eligible applicants is a.s under:-.

(i) Tl"ie applicants sfiould tie resident of IDeltii. witli fiis name registered in electoral rolls as per abstract nt photo E-Roll or £R0 certificate.

(ii) Ti'ie applicant sfiould be a major, viz. witli over 1 f. years of age as per valid , birtfi cei'tificate or age certificate or sciiodl certificate etc.

(iii) "ffie applicant sfiould be a needy as |:ier records of iDC- (f^.evenue) or as vulnerability records of Government of MCf of IDelfii (Samaiil<: Suvidlia .Sangam: vulnerable and most vulnerable category).

(iv) The api'jiicant shciLild be registered as pei' l\ll."'Mt.' •Street'Vendors Scfieme. Tlie policy verification of i.he applicant should be available.

(v) The applicant or fiis dependent family inembei' should not be employed or" siiould not fiave any otiiei tehbazari/vending or any other business prei'nises in r.)eliii as per-record verification of NDMC/MCD. VILF.(C)47^13/201X, 525^1/20.1XfH curtnecled mnHers Page. .IX trf /B (\/i) Preference will be given Lo api^licants who-aie physically handicapped or widows or senioi^ ciUzcirs above GO yeai"5 • oi' Kasliiriiri migrants oi- .SC./.b1 (necessary ceiiiiPicate to be submitted and relaxation may be given in ttie above criteria)."

¶14A\s per the lesponclent/INJDMC, the category-wise list ol eligilile shortlisted applicants in terms oP tlie aPoresaid ciiteri.a totalled lo applicants. The aPPidavit dated

01.[]8.2011 states tliat tlie res|;)ondent/NDMC tias identiPied 103 new spaces, in addition to Ihe .?0.l remaining spaces identiPied by tite Thareja Committee in the IMI.M^K... area, wliich were available Por allotment, thus talcing tPie total numl.iei c.)P available spaces to 386. It was Puiltier stated that due to Pactors lil-.e do-listing oP the i-'arliarnent Sti^eet on security grounds, consti ik tion ol Plyovers and'Metro .Stations at various locations in the NIDMC jurisdicl.ion, tPie number oP authorized Lehbrizciri squatters has changed from .i'lfi i.o in number. The number oP applicants, who ttie respoiHikrint/NI )M(.. claims, are vending unauthorisedly at Connaugtit Place, Sarojini Nagar, PaiTanient Street and Janpatli areas and in wtiose Pavour, .s7,:(///.'v quo oixlers are opei'ating, is stated to be 323 in number. "PIte aPPidavit asserts ttiat simply because the nanies oP tlie petitioners, wpio are registeiei.l wilh tPie NDMC, Pigure in tlie eligibility list drawn by the i'es|:)ondent/Mt'M('.:, cannot be ti'eated as pr'ooP oP their regularly vending in tlie l\ll.)M(: .area and nor does it conPer on them any enPorceable vested right to en.suie a venclincj space for them in the l\IP.)MC area, whicPi is directly de|icMi(lent on Mr.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/20X1 a conne€l.B>i lusiXers rvige 12 ul' 2n \ n/ Ll'ie number of spaces available. Thus, il. was conlencled I'.hal; neil:linr llui: possession• oP any nUmljer oP cinallans, nor Li'ie absence tiiereof can make 3 difference,, Por l:he I'eason tlioL ciialians cann.ol: Porm P.he basis for liie peLitioners l;o claim any vesl:ed, legal righit l:o squaL al: a given s|.ia(:e. .15. Counsel for lihe^ responcieriL/NDI^IC asserted l;haf. i.iie in e.';enl: peLiLions are iiot rnaintaii'iabie inasmuch as lUie peL'iLioiiers have an equally ePPicacious all;ernaLe I'em.edy oP approaching l.:he apr)i;;llnl.e K auL'hoilty constituted by tfie Cliairperson, NDMC, Por redressai of Iheir grievances ai"id failure on tfieir part to iiave appi'oacfied tlie Vemling Committee is not on account of ttie Pact, tliat the said Coriin-iittee inclu(..lini.) tl'ie appellate autfiori.ty is not Punctioning, but becai.ise l:l"iey liave fouuiJ it more convenient to bypass tlie aforesaid forun'i and approach tliis (.;;ouit directly, which is not permissible: She stated tt)at extensive nuVasuriM'; have been .taken by the respondent/NDMC to constitute tfie adjudicnl.oi y '.<3 mechanism by way of a three tier system, in the following manner; .1-. Vending Sub-Comniittee (Site of Spaces), r

¶2Vending Sub-Comrnittee (l leath and Mygiene) and .j.. Vending Sub-Cor)-im.ittee('EnPorcerrient).' J.6, ohe stated that tfie creation of tfie aforesaid tliree Vending .TjiiI.)- CoiTimittees,Vending CornrniLtee(Main), as also of the appellateaulhorily which was constituted to redre.5's the grievance,s-of the squai.tcr;;, hawkers, traders, residents or any other person against the dc.isioii of W.P.fc; 47.13/2011, .^254/20X1 ffi connected •I'agf. :L'I Iff .7.11 thie Vending Comn-iillee',(Main), was placed before l;lie Supienie L.niiil: loi' •) C-onsideraLion and Itie said Lliree l:ier a/JjudicaLory rnecl'ianisiri was duly approved in the jLidgn'ienl: of Gainda flam (sLipi'a).

¶17Per conl;i-a, learned coui'isels • For Lfie ijeLiLioners/vendui s, who appeared on different dates, vefieii'iently oiijposed l:lie aforesaid .si.and tal<en by l.tie respondent/MDMC and asserlied' that the sclienie lloaled by tlie respondent/IMDMC for regulating vending activilJes iri ils ji.irisf. had lapised on 30.-05.2011. in l:fie ai.jsence of the enactment of a legi.slal.it 35 per directions of tlie .Supi'en"ie Couii: in tfie case of Gainda Rani (supra) and as on date, there is no'scfierne in existence. It was canva.s.sed llial Llie implication of aforesaid oi'der of sLdcus quo passed by Supreme Court on .15.07.2011 can only, mean that ii'respective of the faci: wl'iether squatting is legal (.)r illegal, tfie same be peiniil.led l.o continue on an "as is where is' basis, and such staixis quo is to lie ntained by all the parties till a law is framed by tlie legislaLure. B.B. .bawliriey, Sr. Advocate apiieaiing for petitioners/vendors submitted ftiat in tlie case ofGciiilda l-<arn (supia), Supieme Court had directed tliat Llie appro|:ji'iaLe governrnenl; mir';t enai..,l I a law on oi" before 30.OG.2011 so tfiat the fiawkers may f;i ei;;isely know the contoLiis of theii" riglits, lience tfie dispute rediessal intichaiii;;i11 pi ovided foi in the scfierne mentioned in tfie aforesaid •jr.idgmeni r:oi operaLe only upto 30.06.2011 and Ihereaffer, the said schenu: won W.P.(CJ4743/2011,.5254/2011 « conneciednratte.^• Page 14uf 2M auLomai-icallystand lapsed. He staled Lhat no other interpretationcan tie i given to ttie order dated 15.07.2011,directingmaintenanceoT qt.nK \ in view of ttie quaiiryingwoixls, "as it is obtaining today". He ai gued lhal : it ttie sctierne was continning to opei"ate, as clain-ied by ttie Iriained i counsel Tor the respondent/NDMC,ttien there was no good reason lor (.he respondent/NDMCto have retrained troin holding a draw oP lols, which was slated tor the same day, i.e., :l 5.07.20.1.1, antl ttiat fact ot l.he mallei i is that even the respondent/NDMC had understood the sfa/././.s qun order I to mean that there is no'scheme in,place after 30.6,.2011, Tor the reason tliat in pai-a 68 oT the aforesaid judgment in tlTe ca.se of Gait'Lla. ; {supra), all ttie writ petitions and ttie interini applications filed iiefon:- the • Sur.ireiTieCourt were disiDosed of v\/itfi dear and specific directions lliat the , problem of hawl<ing and street vending could be regulated by : schemes framed by the I\II3MC arid MCD only upto .:!0.00.20.l 1 ami iiol. thereafter. It was asserted on belialf of the petitioi lei's/vei idoi s Itial as on date, ttie directions of the .Supreme Court ttiat (juo i.'-; l(.' be inaintainecl by ttie parties can only be given one intei pretatioii, whiih is ttiat till a law is ultimately enacted by the Paiiiament, irre.9pective nf Iht^ii legal status, all ttie petitioners/vendors would be permitted i.o i.,ontiiiue squatting/tiawking at tf'ie sites tfiat have been occupied by ttiern. : .i.y. .Insofar as the composition of ttie disjDUte redressal mec.haiii.Mii i.s ' concerned, learned .Senior Aclvocate fL'i" ttie ir.ietitioiiers siituiiillei.l tiial ' contrary tci ttie understanding of t.tie res|:)oriderit./l\IDMC, l.lie silieme I 47-I3/2011, 5254/2011 ik connecJ.Bil n,alters J 5 vf 7H "s. J n9 \ ' ^ ] I . reinrocl LIced at paras 72 and 73 in the judcjjrneni: in U'le cose ol'Gginda llain •' (supra), was noL" tlie one wliicli was aGlually recognized Iny Llie .'miii.ironle • ; CoLirt, and ratiier it is tiie dispute redressal scinerne meiitioiied in pai a 7.'j •, oF tlie aforesaid judgi'nent i.e., a sclierne for urban street ven(Joi.s for.,: iXIDI^'IC area as forrnuiated in tlie year .2006, whicl'i was ultimately-approv/ed by tl'te Supreme Coui't on 17.0.5.2007/ in the case of .jUl)Ii[|; i . Madan (siipra)., which is ttie scheme wliich finds n'lention speciFically in the following para 74 and is the one approved by ttie Supreme Cmiil'. It was contended tfiat even otherwise, the National Capital I'erritoi'y ot t.'elhi Laws (.Special Provisions) Act, 2011 (her'einaPter rePei'red to as 'Speciisiii! i IP'roviiEiioos Aclf) comes to tlie rescue ot the petitioners for' the reason - that sub-clause

(2) of Section .3 of ttie .Special Provisions Act niandates maintenance of sLai-us quo as on

01.01.2006, notwithstarHjiily any judgment,' decree or order of any court, iii respect of enci oachnK;:!il. or unauttiorized development. i'liiis, it was submitted on behajf of Ihe petitioners/vendors ttiat tliey were entitled to grant of interim prolcclion till the enactn'ient of a legislation to regulate hiawking/vendingactivilies in uiban streets in Ijelhi on the basis of tlie National l-^olicy on Urban .Sl.i eel. Vendors, 2009 framed on 17.06.2009 and the Special ProA/isiorrsAct. •

¶20With reference to the Special Provisions Act, learned .'fimiioi Advocate for the petitioners stated that the phrase," "unautilori/.ed development"used in the definition clause has to be seen in liie :.;ame context as the one in which the pfnase -'encroachment"has been deli W.P.(C)47^^3/2011,525^1/2011a cvnnecieci raye m uf 2n wherein it is mentioned that putting up oP temporary, semi-temporary or pei'manent structure Tor residential use or commercial use or .-my otiiei use, tind the placement oF goods on the pavements by tl-)e petilJoncrs is liable to be termed as unauthorized use Por rnaintainirig status (.|uo undei the Special Provisions Act. i^luch eiriphasis was laid on ttie averments •made by the respondent/NDI^IC in its intei'ii'i'i applicatioi'i Hied tioloie Ihe Supreme Court in Gainda Ranrs cose (supra) in july 20:1.J., to sul.imit Hial. respondent/NDMC itselP had stated in the said applical.ion that tiie scheme had lapsed and tlierePore, the only interpretation that can bo . given to status quo oider i.iassed by tlie Sufireme (ionit on

15.07'.2011 can be that no scheme would exist aPter

30.00.20

1.1 and tiTus, the benePit oP tlie Special l-'rovisiorrs Act ougtit to be extended to the • petitioners. hie submitted that ptirase 'street vendors' has l'.)een clearly dePined under the National P^olicy on Urban Street Vendors, 2000. Reliance was placed in tlie case oP Patri Vyapar Nandal PelPii (;H,cgd,) vs, MCD Town l-|.all Ors. reported as. (200 9) .12 SCC ami pi'ovisions oP the Special Provisions /Act to subniit tl'iat even the Supiome L-OLirt had recognized the Pact that the Special •Provisions Acl. i.s the only Central law governing Pield and it would have primacy over oilier Statutes and administrative orders. .It is thus stated that the provisions . oP the NDMC Act cannot'be iiivoked by tlie respondent/NDMC as tlic; '.aid Act is not in consonance with Article 96 oP tlie.Constitution oP .India and Purti-ierrnore,' the Special Provisions Act being valid till tlie end oP W.P.(CJ^.7^13/2011,5-254/2Q11&co,n.ecfe./ /rTpfferc J7 of [in 6> December2011, no orders in derogalionof tlie provisionsoT die snid Ai.i can be passed.

¶21i^r. S.K. Tripad'ii, /Advocote appearing Tor some of lUie peliitioners/vendors souglit to embellisii Itie submissions oT l^li iney, Si--Advocate and relied on the orders passed in W"IP..(Cj 1449/,Z((.ii:ll.l entided Mohd'. Ismail vs. I^D|v|C 8^ Ors. to urge ttiat tiie "V-\r)p('.llal:e /Authority" constituted under the dispute i^edressal mechanism lor the NDMC area, lias not been functioning, whicli fact he stated is boiiif-; oul from a perusal of the order dated

08.0jj-2011 passed ii'i ttie nloro.s'aiid case, wherein tfie Court took notice of tlie claim of tfie petitioner/vendor therein to effect that inspite of oide!"S passed by tlie Appellate Autl'iority allowing squatting at a pai'ticular site, till a final determinnl ion by the Vendii'lg Committee as to his eligibility, tlie i-es|:)ondent/Nf^M(..: and, i ^ I the police were 'disturbing liis activities. In the' afoi'esaid ord(!r, the I • - statement of the counsel foi-tlie res|:Kjndent/NIDMC was recoi'dei.l 'to the I effect that the appellate authority, whose order was being relied upon tiy ; the petitioner therein, was constituted initially for tfie MCD aieas and laler i started functioning for tfie NDMC ai'eas as well for tfie leason that at that i i I time, there was no sepai'ate .appellate authority for the NDI^IC areas', bul. I : subsequently, in accordance witfi tlie scheme approved tiy tlie ."iupreine I COLiit, the Chairperson,. NDMu fiad constituted a separate-; appc;llale. i: ai^thority for •the NDMC areas. "I'fierefore, the ' appellate aulLiority ri" appointedearlier had ceased to liave jurisdictionqua the NDMC arens, II W.PUCJ 4743/2011,525-^l/20Il« cOnnecl.^d Page 18of2B j • was Ll'ius contended on behiEilf oT Lhe petitioners/vendoi s i.l ial l.hci aPoresaid order clearly indicates l:i"ial; die appellate aul.hprity in l.he l\ll.)MC' ai'eas is not Functioning. • •

¶22Reliance was also I'jiaced on tlie minutes oP tlie riieeting nP tlio Vendiiig Committee dated :l.l.03.20.l 0, to claim thai: iP tPie Pact oP whii^Lhei tliei e was actual squatting/vending was vei iPied' tjy tPie Coinmittec: and iP the names oP tlie petitioners/vendors Pigured in the eligibility list piepai ed by tPie resipondent/NDMC Poi" Piolding ttie draw oP lots, then it di(..l nni lip. in the rnoutli oP the i^espondent/NDMC to claim tliat the petil.'ioneis, wlu.i had been verified' and found to be eligible, were not entitled t(.) S(|uat at various sites in the MDIMC area after .30.06.:Z0 L;L.

¶23In rebuttal, counsel for Lhe respondent/MDMC disi.Mited Llie contentions of Lhe petitionei's/vcndors and while reiterating her ririrlier-submissions, asserted that petitioners did not have, any legnlly eiifoiceable rigPit, creal.ed on Lhe basis of Llie eligiliiliLy list (.Irawn by NL.'MC, foi claiming. granL of inteiim ordei'S in tlieir' favoi.ii'. .Shr.; again lefeiied to paras 68, by, 7b, /6 and 78 of the judgment in tlie i..a.';e uf GciU)d,a_..KaLn^Xsu!3ra^^ to ernpliasize ttiat when the aPoresairl i.iaras are lead collectively,, it is clear tfiat the petitioners canrK)t (.:laim an entitlement to any interim ordei-s as sougfit by Lhein in Llie [nosenL proceedings. She further sLaLed LP.at even otfierwise, the ^:;pe-:i;il Provisions Act relied upon by the petiboners lias duly recognized Lhe W.P.CCJ474.3/2011,52S4/2011 ccnn-,ecV.eW.naffer,- f'aire .19 trf 2ff ,7) schemes prepared by the local auLhoriLiesin the National Capital leirilory of Delhi for regulation oP urban street vendors. -To substantiate Ihe .';;ai(j submission,she drew the attention oP this Court to the preamble op l.he aPoresaid /Act, which mentions tPie Pact that all tPie schemes prepared by tl-ie local authorities in the National Capital" Tei-ritory oP Ijelhi, Por ..regulationoP urban street vendors in accordancewith the National I'oiicy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 and the Master Plan Por Dellii 202 1, have been in-iplemented and Purther that more time is required Por proper implen-ientation oP the schemes regarding hawkers and urtian street vendors.

¶24A specific rePerence was made by the learned counsel Por l.lio Iespondent/i\IDI"'ICto Section .2( l)(c) oP the Special ProvisiorrsAct, which defines the phrase "encroachment" to claim that it.does not cover !.he petitioners herein, who are squatters. In.irtherrePerence was made to the provision ,oP Section 3 oP the Special ProvisionsAct, which contains a noii obstanteclause, to state that quo with regard to tPie encroacPmleiiI. or unauthorized development as on 0;t.01.2006, mentioned in the said provision, was in , tlie context oP dePinition oP tPie "encroachment"and "unautPiorizeddevelopment"set out in the cl.5Use at Sections 2(l)(c) and 2(:l,)(i) respectively of tt,e inl t'rovisionsAct and thus, the petitioners/vendorsdid not qualify iindui the aforesaidenactmentfor clanr,inyprotectionas r,one of l:he inyrcdienlssel out in l|.,e provisionsof the aforesaider,act,-ne,.,tare found to exrst eir W-l .(& 1y^3/2aij,S2S.I/2011a Cnire 211 I asi^s --^'3 Ccise. j.L was submitted that tl'ie. Special Provisions Act, whicli cnme into^ effect ill the year 2007 and has iTeen extended Prom time to time and lastly,,till IJeceinbe.r2011, does not give permission to persons Uj ic-slnrl: any activity once they have been removed by the civic aullioiity and similarly, the Schenie of 2009 does not entitle the registrants to s(|uat unless they have been allotted,a specificsite. In support of tli'e alniesaid submiission, reliance was place on the judgment in tlie case of MCtJ vs. Gu!Tia!;n..J<aurreported as (;ll.9e9) 1 SCC 101. For tlie |.inr|)ose of interpretirig the meaning of the pfirase, "structure", reference was made to judgment of the Supreme Court in case of .Municijjal .CcLrpoja_L[^ of G'iwteiiJ3giTibay & Ors. vs. Indian-Oil Corporat1g11 Ltd, lepoitecl OS AllR 1991 SC 68G. l-or ti'ie purpose of understandiruj iho expression, 'status quo', reference was made to tlie judqiiient in the case of MejL5Ji5j31wgtCoking Coal Limited vs. State of Bihar &Ors. reporied as IW^i? (Supp) SCC 394 to subrnit tfiat in ordinary legal connotation, the teim status quo in'ipliestlie existing state of tfiings at any given poinl. of time. 2j. As foi the National Policy on LIrban Street Vendors, counsel fni l.he Iespor-dent/NUMCstated that both, tlie 2004 policy and the 2(.)0'..) poli(,;y, find mention in the'decisionof tl'ie Suprenie Court in tfie case of Gainda. KailL^rsuorai and it was only after taking into consideration the said policies, did the Court directed ttie institutionalizationof uiban slir:,.'! ve.nding through legislabon. It was further stated that at the" time of •>nr.P.(CJ 4743/2011^5254/2011« n,liters 2J. 2U cleliveiiiiq, the judgment dated 8.J O.2010, tlie Supren'ie Court took lu.itice' oP the NCT oP Delhi La.ws (Special Provisions)7-\ct, 2009, which was valid upto

30.12.20.1.0, apart Prorn noticing l^lodel Street Vendors (l^rotection oP Livelihood and Regulation oP Street Vending) Bill, 200',-) introduced by the Giovernrnent oP ]ndia, f^'linistry oP llousing •;.<i Dil.jon Poverty Alleviation. She stated tliat notlijng riew is now being snPmiitted by tPie petitioners/vendors herein, Por tlie ^present petition:; to P)p entertained Por any purpose-wtiatsoever and all the grievances I'aised l.)y petitionei's can ' easily' be • addressed bePoi'e tl.ie Vending Committee/appellate authority under the scheme relating to urbai'i sti eel: vending in the MID.MC area, whichi Pora continue to I'emain Punctionol, even aPter 30.'6.2011.

¶26Tliis Court has lieaixl ttiese mattei's at lerigtli since .1.7.,",.201t, (jn diPPerent dates. Vailous couri-seis Por tlie ijetltioners/vendois and tiie Standing Counsel Por the resp(Dnclent/r\IDMC liad addressed 'Ihc?. (:oi.ii 1. , Their respective arguments have been taken note oP. l.3otli sides liave made strenuous ePPorts to explain what the^ status quo order dntetl

15.7.2011 passed by tlie Supreme Court in cose oP GaiMCjci .R-3'.n.C5.up,ra)implies, ihe leitmotif oP ttie arguments addressed on IjehalP oP the petitioners/vendors is that the status quo order read will.i tlie qualifying.words, "as it is obtainingtoday", suPPixed to the order, can niily be read to imply that as on date, i.e., 15.7.2011, there was no scheme operationalin the MDMC areas to regulate vending..activitiesand l.ill a law yv.P.(C)4.7^,3/201:1,5254/2011 nwners. • 2n C.5' is ulLimately enacted by tlie legislature, all the petitioners, irrespective of their legal status, can continue squatting/hawking at 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/lMDMC in collusion with the po'lice authorities, is threatening to illegally remove the petitioners/vendors from different sites, 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 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 submissions made by learned counsels for petitioners/vendors was that the Special Provisions A\ct-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, Z'Oll.

¶27On the other hand, the main thrust of the arguments addressed by the counsel' for the respondent/NDMCwas that as the legislature has . failed to enact an appropriate legislation in terms of the decision of the Supreme Cquit in the case of Gainda Ramfsupral,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 afl^airs as existingon 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 o IDassing Lhe staLus quo order on :l.5.07.2011, Llie Supreme Com I. war-;: conscious or Lhe feel; iJ-ial: die Parliament had yet to enael a conipretiensive legislation to regulate urban stii^et vending anrl in sucJi circumstances, it goes without saying tliat it \A/a5 tlie intent of the (.'(.Mirt ttiat the entire dispute redressal rnechanisiri as recognized in llie case oi Gainda P^am^sulJra) would -cpnliinue to reniain in operation, st.) as In regulate ttie iirban street vending in ttie MIDMC area, till tl'ie legislation in tl")at regarcl is enacted. F'u.rl.tier, it was stressed tliat ,'ipec.ial Provisions Act did not provide any protective urnt)i"ella to tlie |iel.iti()ni_Ms, whose sciuatting activities neitlier tell under llie detinitiDii uT "encroachment", nor under "unauthorized development". ]t was ti.iillinr asserted tliat •even otliei"wise pending an appropriate legislal:ii.)ri, llie NIDMC Act wa.s available as a tall bad-; option and tlie relevant provisions in the said enactment would continue to regulate street ve'nclini.) aclivil.y in the l\ll.7iMC area and ttie i:)etitioners/veridors could not (dairn a vested i to squat at any site oP thieir own. I -28. Trom the above, it is apparenl. that argLimerits and counter ai guiTients have been raised by botti sides on ttieir respective version'; of I the meaning and the ettect oF the status quo ordei" dated I,I. I I : passed by the bupi^eme Court. It is also very a|;.)parent,that the nK.ianincj . souglit to be attributed by botli sides as to tlie implication ot the said ; status quo order, is diametricallyopposed lo each oilier. Mot only tl'iis, both sideo aie at a taiigeiiton l:he Pacturn ot ttie pendency or' i.il Ilei wi.'.:e. ot ^.7^3/2011, S254/2axi s, connecter! n,saers . 2-^^ ,,n' interim aiiiplications filed beTore Liie, Supi'eme. Coui't l:.)y bolh, applicants'/vendors and the respondent/NDMC, For clariPications, oii wtiicii ttie aforesaid oi"der came to - l:Je passed as. it is tiie stand ol tlie respondent/NDMC tliat. U"ie afoi'esaid applications were not disi'io.'-.KM.I (,)( wfiile passing the order dated 15.7.2011.. The pai'ties are poles apart en •the question of import of the Stati.is quo order, and tlie erfei:!. of the observations made by ttie Supreme Court ii"i tlie case of Caind.Q Pxamfsupra) as regards tlie approval of NtDMC scheme. I'hey aie als(.) at loggei'heads on cofnposition of the acljudicatory meclianism in I.fie ND|V|C jLirisdiction and the rnanner of_ its functioning, as also tl)e idenlJty of ti'ie scheme which is validly operating in tine Nl^i^^lC areas for regulating ui'ban street vending, wl'iich tiad all been .subject matter of considei ation before Lhe Supreme Court in tfie aforesaid case. The other .is.snes agitated by parties, starting fi'on'i the interpretation of tite vaiiou.s obser'vations i"nade by ttie Supren'ie Court in tlie aforeisaid Judgment, the formulation of ttie sci'ieme as appixn/ed by the .Suj.jrerne Court in the case of Sudfiir Madan fsupra), to tf)e composition of tl)e di.'.:pui.e.s redressal rnecfianism and its validity as also the meaning of tlie '-.talu.'-, quo ordei", are all in a turnioil as both tfie pai'ties fiave stoully (.lefended theii Iespective stands whicii .are completely at variar.ice witli eai::h i.il.iiei. Ihe only .con'imon ground sfiared by the parties is tl'ie factuni of pri:;.';iuc.| I of the recent judgment dated 0tl.10.201U in tfie case of Caiiidg ;• .[<S!n(sL!pr^:i)and tfie subsequentstatus quo order dated l!x7.20.l.l pas^;ed .. W.f' .{CJ

5.754/2UXX.ffi. co/rnecieci'lugSJers fVn/'c-; ul' /Jl by Uie SiJpi'erne Lourt.

¶29Tlie roLintainhead oT Line, dispute in l;l'ie presenl; cases l.lif.ie.li.ire remains tiie status quo order dated 15".7.20.1:1 passed by l.lie .'iiipremc: Court. Ttie issue wiiicln is'sougtit to be agitated betoi'e this (Joint i^. Ilial I'laving regard to tine status guo order, whetiner a stay order ouglil. l.o l,ie granted by this Court in favour ot ttie iiietitioners/vendors as prayed !ui by tlieiTi, ir'respective. of ttieir iegai status, thus • toit'iiddinci llio respondent/IMIDIMC Pron'i tlii^eatening and/or removing tiiem fiom I.lie diPterent sites occupied by ttiem in the NpMC areas, tn other vvoids, tlii.s CoL.irt is being called upon to examine tiie meaning, sco|;)e and ellei;!. ol ttie status C|U0 order dated

15.07.20J.'.C On question of hew to ^l5certain ttie iniplication oP a status qu. order passed by a t;:oui t, in Ihe ca.se of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal.Limit('J fsupra"), ib was oLiservei.l by tln'. Supreirie Court that ttie expression, 'staius quo' is unrlouLiteilly a lerm oP ambiguity and at tin'ies, gives rise to do il.it and diPPiculty and in case any poi'ty has any doubt on .Ilie ryenning and tlie ePPect oP the •.slalii:, (|uo order, the proper, course for such a partv would be to approach the. i ;oui f that had passed the status quo oreler, l;o soelf:...clariPications. JO. .tn l:he case at hand, while seelciriq nj ride ttie wave oPllie afi)rr'.,':inid stati.is quo oiciei, tlie I'.iarties have cliri.TF'.n [q oveiii.irjk one impoilani laetoi, whi(:h i.5 ti'iat a status r|uo oi der o|jerate.s tin L)oth .si(ie..s. Ihi'. •Suprerne Court lias passed orders requiring botfi sides to maintain siatiis rc; 474J/20II, a connecter/ nu.Uers ' .Zn .,r 7H quo. Qi'ice SLicli an order of l.:he Su|:)ren;ie Couri: is on recoi'cl, nol; only binds all the parties to the adjudication, and all tlie parl.ie.s, civil 01" judicial who ai"e required to act in accordance vv/ith ll'ie said ordur-;, hut it equally binds the l-ligh Court Ti oni interPering witli sucl'i an ordei, as the. said order has been passed in litigations bel'ore the tiigliest Ci.u.ii 1. (it the land.

¶31Ihe orclei's oP the •Supren'ie Court'ai^e on record. "I'lie stalirs (|U(i order is a cleai' signal to tine lligh Court as well, to avoid qranUncj any oidei, including an interim order, when the Supreme Court has ilii ei,:leiJ Poi-status quo to be maintained. In such circumstances, iP tliis Couil was to giant a stay order in Pavour oP tPie petitioners/vendorsarrayed hePoie It, It would be tantamountto negating the orders oP the Su|;)remf;(jum I., which letiuiie. the pcirties to maintain status qi,io pending enacljiieiil oP appropriate legislation. IP either oP the parties were unclear ahoul. the interpretationoP the status quo order, it was Por tlrern to have a|,pli(.l to the Supreme Court for clariPications thereoP. Additionally, l.he reliance placed by l:|-,e peCiUoners/venclorsun U,e Special Provlsl,,,,,.;Act scakllK,, interim iegai sa"cl-il:v to i.iie placement of goods by i.i.om on II,o povcmenls, by termir.g it as, eocroaclimeot/Linauthorizcdoso, ,-,s recognized under the said Act and their contention that tlie SM|»fii"e conrt had recognizedthe Tact that the Special ProvisionsAct is Iho only Cenbal law having primacyover ott.e,-Statutes,a,e also nial.teislhal, Iho petiLioners/vendorsought to liave placed before the Supreme Couil while seeking clariricationsof the status quo order. It would theief-Me i:)e cd\/i_-,able foi the petitioneis/veiuloi-s as also the res|:)ondent/l\ll)M(,: to approach Lhe Supreme Court and make their submissions Ihero'as regards their grievances. However, as both parties insisted thai (heir ai-ciLiments be taken note of and their submissionsbe placed on recr,rr|, some pains have been taken to do the needful. 32-In view of lhe aforesaidfocte and ci,-ci.rrnsl,aiice5,1:1,is Ojii,Iis nf |J". oi^iiiionlhat it «,ili nol: be appropriatefor it to grani:stay orders la,:;n 01' the status quo order dated 15.07.2011passed by tho St.prenn., it is reil:eratedthat any such order si,ail be an anti-thesisto the no.iors of l.-he SoprerneCourt, whicii must be respectedboth, io lettei-a,Hispirit. Ih .such circumstances,the present petitions are disposed ot t!y dorlinioy gi ant of any interin-,orde|-s to tl,e |.,etitioners. Howevei,' liboi i.y i.s rpanied to botn Uie pdities to apply to the SupremeCourt for a-danncation.,r the Status quo order dated IS" 07 nrn nnec-i • ,, -U.LI. passed in the case of Gaiiida Kam .(.su.pj::a),. The parties,are left to t.ear theirown costs. • J OCTOt^i^.^^-(, 201;L (HIMA IICOMIIil)...)!) '••'<b '' JUDi.-jI .7jr in":/![

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 + w.p.rc\ 4650/2011. 4347/2011. 4651/201V 4559/2011, 4827/2011, 4593/2011. 4923/2011_ 4610/2011. 5024./9ni 5028/2011. 5257/2011. 4775/2011. 5258/2011. 5247/2011 5261/2011. 5254/2011. 5-2&2/2Q11- 5255/2011. 5263/2011 5264/2011. 5277/2011. 5292/2011. 5312/2011. 5317/2011 5402/2011. 5403/2^11. 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. / ^ w A JL r 5761/2011 5784/2011. 5785/2011, 5791/2011. 5794/2011 5797/2011. 5928/2011 5798/2011. 5822/2011. 5911/2011. 5918/2011. 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. 4990/2011. W.P.(C)4347/2011andcannectedmatters 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. A 5063/2011, 5089/2011, 5099/2011. Sllvi/^nn 5115/2011. 5139/2011. ';144/2Q11. fiyn^TT^TTrr 6799/2011, 6824/2Q11. 6825/2011. 6fi7R/2Qll. 6901/2011, 6902/2011. 6903/2011, 6904/2011^ 6905/201 It—6906/2011. 6907/2011. 6908/2011 ^ f;QnQ/-3nii 6910/2011, 6917>201i: 6919/201 / 6922/2011:fiQ32/2011^nri •;4lo7i5l1" ^ 6921/7011, m THE MATTERS OF MOHD AfaM Petitionerin W.P.(C)4347/2011 Ttrpai Petitionerin W.P.(C)4559/2011 KiKPAL bllMGH Petitioner in W.P.CC^ 4593/2011 SHAILENDERKUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C)4610/2011 R&Rm^ Petitionerin W.P.(C)4650/2011 ^ Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4651/2011 AMAR NATH SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4827/2011 BHUPAL ^ Petitionerin W.P.(C)4923/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5024/2011 SURENDERSINGH AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5028/2011 " Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4775/2011 RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5247/2011 RAM DASS Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5254/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5255/2011 Ai\niI Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5257/2011 Petitioner in W.p.(C) 5258/2011 kAJESH CGUPTA AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5261/2011 lAKHPATIand ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5262/2011 ^FnA^Dr'"^'' Petitionersin W.P.(C)5263/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5264/2011 ARUN KUMAR ALIAS LUCKY Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5277/2011 MOHn y'^wrn Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5292/2011 cuA.r ' Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5312/2011 AHMED Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5317/2011 NAND KISHORE Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5402/2011 RINKU KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5403/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5405/2011 NARESH KUMAR RAO AND ORS Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5408/2011 ^BI HAqAM " ^ 5