Ajay Kumar v. Ndmc and Ors

judgment. A. To give a brief background of the dispute, learned counsel Inr ihe respondent/NDMCwalked this Court through sorne proiriinentdecision;;,ol / tl'ie SupreineCourt rendered from time to time, which relate l.o-pavoiileiil. \vV,p-,(Cj S254/2011 & connecied rn^liers !' 'I ' .1 , I • i! .^ ' . • squatters/hawkers,smarting from the decision in l:h0 case oP Sudan Sinyh vs:-NDMC'S,O.I'S• repoited as (1.998) 2 SL.C 727, U-ie inleiim (.iid-.. •03.-03 2005 ^p.ssed by the SUpren.e Court ii. 16P9/:li.937 enUtled c;,,Vlhir Madan (k the final judgnienl:in the cnsn ul '^nrlhir Madall (sLipj-'al repoited as (2009) 17 SCi-b97 ch id , 'judgmentdated 08.10.2?010passed in the case c)l= GaindaJianLCsLip!u)., 5,: .Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMCvehementlyopposed 1.1u. prayer of the petitioners/veildorsfor grant of interim-ordeis iesl.i.niiiny the respondent/lMDMCfrom rennoving I'hern from tlie sites ocuipied l.)y them tiir the enactment o.f an appropriate legislation, In terms nl the directions issued by the Supi-eme Court in the. case of baindd jJ.jm fsUBm),., She-particularly.referred to the observations made by the Supreme Coprt ih paras 40 and 41 of the judgmentin the case of Sodgn. SinglTisupraiwhich dealt with the imniediateeviction of i.inanthoii/.ed Vsquatters/l-iawkei-sand laid emphasison the fact that in the said case, tfir. .Supreme'Court had directed removal of unauthorizedsqual.tei.s/h..iwkei.s without'awaitingfinal allotmentof sites to be allotted to eligible,cinimaiit;, 'at the places recommended by the'TharejaCommittee or suygesi.cd by the NI'JMC. •

¶6Again, in iihe interim order dated 03.03.200G passed in -.'U ' Madan^s P.ase.rsLiDi-al, the following observation made by the Suni r ' Court was highlighted by the counsel for the respondent/NDMC;•• " (C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 a cn'nnedjed rnalteis Paye 5 of •'I f .\ ] : I !!•' "Wtiile we. undertake this ex'fercise,. we diiect L . Authorities to see-to it, that those persons, who are .carrying oh hawl<ing activities or who ai'e scjuat.l:ing oii public land without any authority, even in accurdaiM.,e with the present clay scheme in force, are reino\/e( foi-thwith." This includes unauthorized hawking., squatting on public streets, Pootpaths and public parks, iliciudingpfayground.We direct the Delhi /Adnunistrotu)!i to take steps immediatelyin collaboratibnwith ML.D niu nDMC with necessary assistance froim 13elhi I'olice tu clear the roads, streets, •footpaths, paH<s etc. |-.)y unauthorized, occupants/squatters/hawkers."

¶7. As to the judgment dated 17.05.2007 rendered in tiie case of SU.dhir.,Macicii1,Xsjll2ra).^much emphasis was laid by the, couiioe.l loi the i-espondeht/MDMCoh, paras 28. to 30 and 35, which arc ie|,iioduced ! I'lereinbelow fbi' i-eeidy referehce:-

1.1, 'I , • , ' "28. The New Delhi Municipal Comh'iittee tiO-S al.M,) ' submitted its. Scheme. We have considered-theSchenie sLibh'iittedbefore us. Ihe area which falls uiidei MUM'.. does not create problems such as those in tl'ie area.s ^ Undei-MCD. However; in l:he said Scheme reference Iin.s been made to persons who do not have permission under Section 225 or licence under Section .330 of tht-i NDMC Act, 1994 but who ai'e uinauthoi'isedlycontinuing to carry on business as tiawkers/streetvendors. Ihey have been described as those who are "tolerated" iij the .NDMC area. We fait to understand why any person who violates the law should be tolerated. Either they stiould be compelledto obey the law or the law may be suitably amended, if it Is found to create undue l'iardslii|:i. Ihe • problems need to be addressed by the legislature or the , i-ulen-iakihg authoiity. We, therefore, observe tfiat 11' II • is felt that the persO.ns who fall in ttiis category lequlre special protectiori, the /Act may be suitably an-iended to cover their cases or else ,tl"ie nurnijer of such illecial squatters miay increase from time to time.' m.P.(C) 4743/20li, 5254/2011 & connected maS:l:ers Pag<?. f' '.'f 2B- ^ t , ' I'l 'I • ;i • i' ' , 'Y : ( •!: : I, •

¶29There has been no serious objecUon l:o Llie bcheme SLibi-nitted by NDMC'which is a coriiprehensiveschente.. Certain directions have, however, been sought Poi fioiii this CoLiit. We approve the Sclierne submitted by NDMC.' . • .

¶30It is submitted before us that tlie Schen-ies whic.li have been approved b'y this Court must be subject to any /-\ct or rul-es that may be framed in consonancewilh the National. Policy oh Urban Street; Vendors. It goes without sayihg that wfe have approved the .Schemes os fraiiled by MCD and NDI^C. IP the legislature intervenes and' frames another schen'ie or regulations governiiig such Schenies, that will certainly supersede tiie. Schemes prepared by MCD and NDMC. It is well settled that any administrativeaction is always subject to Iciw ;-:that may be Pi-amed by the competent legislature. '35.. Subject to the aforesaid modiPications/ctiangesin • the Schei'heis subiiiitted -by I^ICD and NDMC, tlie same , are approved. The said authoilties shall now take cippropriiatesteps to irnplen'ientthe Scheme forthwith. In case oP any diPPiculty Paced by tfiem iri irn|olemeiiting the schemes, they shall have the liberty to apply to. this CoUrt."

¶8Lastly, in the i'eCent judgment in the case oP UMJ.lda...(y^-!l-''>'•)- learned cotinsei for the respondent/IMDMCspecifically relied ur^on pnras i30, 32, So i-;o' 66-to state that the SLipren-ieCouii: was conscious oP the fact; that a sti'Uctured regulation and legislation is urgently rec|uiicd to control and |-egLilatetile fundamental right oP hawking. Slie also I'loiiited out thai; the three tier disputes redi'essal meciiarli.srn set out in the affidavit filed by the then Chairperson of ttie NDMIC was taken, note ol hy the Supreme Cduii' ih para 72 bPthe aPoresaid jiJdgn'ient and iii pnin 7 i, il was then observed as beloW;- •W.r.fCJ 41743/2011, 5254/2011 & conhecSled matters Page 7 iff 2(( ll ,1. :) i! - ; I; , •f v 1^ . "'K "73 In paragraph 12 of the'affidavitit has i:)een staled that there shall be an Appellate Authority which shall .attend to the. redressal of grievances of squattois hawkers, traders, residents or any othei" person .ly hearing appeals against the decision of the VeiK.liny Con-in-iittee(Main). Paragraph 12 of tfiat affidavitis sc;. out below:- There shall be an Appellate /Authority. On the forwarding 'Of petitions received by thu Chaii-|3ei-son, this Authority shall attend lo redi'essal of grievances of squatters, hawkeis, traders, residents or any other person.^ Ihn •/Authority'shall also hear appeals against Ihe decision'ofVending Cornitiittee(Main). l3ecisions of this Authorityunless challengedbefol'e a Miyhei Forum or in any CompetentCourt, shall be Mndl. This Authority shall be initiallylieaded by a person appointed by the Chairperson having at least .10 years legal oi" judicial background. Thei^e can )f,. nioi'e than one itiember in this ALithority. « g, ' After h-iaking the aforesaid observations,in paras 74 to /b of l.b'O •judgment,tine SuprenieCouit went on Lo obsei'veas below-:- "74 Jn the'said affidavit, which was affirmed beli.)ie this Court on 24^'' August, 2010 it has been staled that NiDMC shall coil-iply with the orders wliich would l)e passed by the acljuclicatorymechanism contemplatedin ; . the scheme and which has been approved by this Couit ^ •for the NDMC area, Uhlesssuch ordel'S are. made subjecl: matter of Ghallenge before a higl'ief forurn oi" in any other competent Court.

¶75In view of such schemes; tfie hawkers, squalLeis and vendors must' abide by' the Dispute lledi'essal scheme mentioned above. There should not be any dii-ect approach to this Couit by way of fresh petition or .t/As,' bypassing tfie Dispute l-(edressal Mlecllanis'iii provided in the scheme. W.P.(G) 4743/1.011, 5254/10X1 ft coiUiecie.cl matters I'nge 0 irf 2 ft /' s Jl !• i •t . |- '• i' •. I

¶76However, before 30^" June, 2011, the approprial.e' • . Government is to enact a law on the basis or l;lie l:>i nientioned above, or o,n the basis oP any arnei'idment _ thereof so that the hawkers may precisely k.now l.lie • contours, of theii'rights." id; it was thus sought to be contended "on behnif,• of tlie respondent/NlDlMCthat thei^e can be no vacuum as far as legulctUon ol trade df streefllawkers/vendorsin the IMDMC jurisdictionis concerne.Jand the failure Oh the part of the legislatureto abide by the timeline set out by'the Silpi-el-neCourt in the case of .^rLd^^iLlIL_(^i;j.ra).'''^V puf-bng in place,a statute on or before 30.06.2011,caniiot be interi^reted by the 'petitionei-s/vendoi-s to mean that they can continue theii tir.K.U. unhirvdei-ed.at any place of their choice In the NDI^IG jurisdiction,in an . unregulated manner and without any obstruction or objection hom the •MDl'-'IC. , . ^ ,11. I_earned counsel for the respondent/NDMCparticuloiiy referred lo paras 74 Snci 75 of tfie aforesaid judgment to state that tlie dispute redressaJ scheme, noticed by the Supreme Couil in par'a 7b was tlic one that'was legally Tunctioning in NDMC jurisdiction and which was token note of by the Court in the precedingpara 74. In other words, slie stated I. ' , _ o that the scheme as set otii: in the affidavit dated 24.00.2010, filed by the then Chairpei'son of .NDMC before the SuprelTie Court in .(J,gij:,!d,a ,|<aiirs ca.se (supj;a).,, was tlie one which was finally approved by the .Supieme. Court: She further subiriitted that assuming, without admitting, that the W.P.(C) ^y43/3i}X 1/ 52S4/20.1.i & connected rrjsi'ters P'agG 9 i.rl' Ji • •, i,' •• i : i:'. 1 . i| •• if- 't' , • • I . I • I ._;y s. f- , • 'r • • I" i > i| I ' •' r ;i h•• •• L , dispute reclressalsdneme set out by line NDI^^C had lapsed on 30.rK:/()1.1, as claiiTied by the petitioners,then the-NDMC Act provides an adec|uaL.« •Fallback l;o ensure orderly managementoP vendors in the area. Spf'cilu. .rePerencewas made in this,regard'tothe provisionscontained in ,.:.ccti(iii.. 221, 22-^1', 225 and,22G of the said Act. •. 12. It was further argued by the counsel Por the re5poridenl.:/NUM(.th..it tlie appiicatiOhfiled by the NDMC before the Supreme Court in .luly 20 1I praying /)ifer.a//a Poi" extension of time to regulate hawi<er5/squatteisin the NDMC area, as pet'tinescheme mentioned in the judgmentin Gainda •RanV. rase fsupral, till the enactmentof a law. by the legislaturein-that regard, had not yet been finally disposed of by the Supreme Court at the time of passing of the status quo order dated 15:07.201:1.and similarly, the other application filed by one, of the hawkers/vendorspraying inlr.i ^'aiia for i^estrainingthe respohdeni:/NDMCfrom granting Tehb;^zarirights •> ' to the winners of iiiie-lucky draw of lots for allotment, which was to l)e held on

12.05.201If or any date thereafter, was also ponding consideration befoi-e the Supreme Court. Hence, no iinality cuuli.l he /attached to the order dated 15.7^2011 which can only be considered an • iriteriii'i hieasure till tlie final .disinOsal of the aforesaid a|..)plicLition..ii.h l.li'.. enactnient of a legislation.

¶13On merits, leai-ned counsel for the respondent/NDMlCrelerred to 1.1 le .afPiciavii: dated 01.08.'2011 filed by the Director (Enforcement), NDMC, W-.P.(C) 474-3'/2dli, 5254/20.il Sr. conhscted inal.ters Page .1.0 oi' 2H li . ! • '•:! I • j: I , wherein li: was stated that pursuant to the public notice issued i.)y Ui^,- NDMC inviting applications under the NDMC Urban Street Ve.uliny Scheme in •'the year 2007, the respondent/NDMC had received '-l/.O/ applications,the documents required by the applicants Tor ieyLsi..u.itie)n under,the'Schenieincluded a prooT oP age, docurnentaiy pi oul/ulliduvil. for the puriDOse oP'annual income, proor oP residence, prooP m&iippi.'il."P •special categorieslike handicapped,Kashmiri migi-ants etc. and i-ruoP i.l squatting in the NDMC area, iP any. In para 4oP the aPoresaid dlddavit, the rolbWIrtg criteria approved/adoptedby the Vending Comn.iltec U. . shortlist the eligible applicants is set out;- "4. Thai: the criteria approved/adoptedby tbe Vend Cohnmittee to shortlist the eiigibie applicants is-as Uhder:- fi) The applicants should be resident oP Deli'ii witli hi.'^^ nahne registered in electoral rolls as pei" abstract o photo E-Roll or izRO ceitiPicate.

(jj) The applicantshould be a iriajdl', viz. with over IM years of age as per valid birth certificate or age Gerl:jncate or school certificate etc.

(iii). The appiicant should be a needy as per inc(..n5ie ("(^cords ofiDC (Revenue) or as vulherabilil:yrecords oP .Govei-nmentoP MCT oP Delhi (Sarnajik Suvldha .Sangain; Vulnerable and most vulnerable category).

(iv) The applicant should be registered as per l\l|..'Mt. Street Vendors Scheme. The policy veriPication oP the. applicant should be available.

(v) the applicant or his dependent Pamily memiicr should not be employed or should not have any olJior . tehbazari/yending of any other busines.5 pi-emise.s in tjellii as per record verification oP MDMC/MCD. •'W.P.(C) 4743/201 ir'5254/2.01:1 ffi conneclied matters Page. .11 ol' J. .i-'' r- ; : . . I I , I ' 1 , l,; ••(vi) Preference, will be. giveh to applicants who-I'le : .physically hanclicappecl or widows, .or senior nitons above years • or Kashi'niri migrants or (necessary cerliificate to be submitted and relaxation may be given in the above criteria)." •

¶14As per the respondent/NDMC, the category-wise list ot eligible shortlistedapplicants in terijis of the aforesaid criteria totalled to ...../o applicants. The affidavit dated

01.08:2011 states Lh..t the respondent/NDMChas ideiitiried183. new spaces, in addition to tlie remainingspaces identifiedby the Thareja Committeeiil the Mf^viC area, .which'were• avatlabte-.foh allotment, thus taking the total number ot lavailablespaces to 386. -It was furtherstated that due to factors like do-jisting of' the Parliament.Sti-eet on security grounds, construction of 'flyoversahcr Metro Stationsat various locationsin the IMDMC Jurisdiction, the number Of authorized.(.-e/-;/jazansquatters has changed from ..vl-to . 404 iil nuiriber. The number of applicants, who the iespondc-.nt/NDIIt. claims, are vending unauthoiisedlyat Connaught Place, Sarojini Nagnr,• Parliament Street and Janpath areas and in .Whose, flavour, slalus quo •orders-areoperating,is stated to be-323 in number. The affidavitasserts ..thatsimply because the naiTies of the petitioners,who are registeredwilh ' the NDMC; I'igure in the eligibility list drawn by the respontlent/Nt)M(.., ' cannot^'be hreated as proof of their i-egtllarly vending in tl'ie NUMt. aiea : and nor does it confer on thehi any enforceablevested light to en.sure a •vending space for them in the NEDMC area, which is directlydependenton mr.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & cofinect.eiJ matters • Ffiife 12 ffr 2tf / Lhe number of spaces available. Thus, II:. was conlended dial: neillicM-llu.: possessionof any number of challans, nor the absence diereof can mako; a difference, for l:he reason U'lat challans cannot form Uie basis for lhr< pedtionersto claim any vested legal right to squat at a given sijac.e.

¶15Counsel for the respondent/MDMC asserted that the pic.'.ent pedtions are not maintainable inasmuch as the iieUtionei.s h,ive an equally efficacious alternate"remedy of approaching the appellate authority constituted by the Chairperson, Nf3MC, fur rediessal nl Ihnii grievances and failure on their part to have approached the Vcin.ling • Committeeis not on accountof the fact tliat die said Committeeim li.H.ling the appellateauthorityis not functioning, but because they liave lound il more convenientto bypass the aforesaid forum and approach this L.nuil. directly, which is not permissible. She stated that extensive mciasuie;. have been taken by the respondent/l\IDIv|C. to constitute tlie adJi idii.atoiy rnecfianisrn by way of a three tier system in the following manner: -• ;l.. Vending Sub-Committee (Site of Spaces), 2-Vending Sub-Committee (Heath and Hygiene) and .j. Vendirig Sub-Con-imitLee (Enfarc'ement). ;fie stated that ttie creation of l:tie aforesaid three Cominittees, Vending Committee (Main), as also of tfie a|:.)|,:)ellat,eaiilhoiily whicli was constituted to redress the grievances of tlie squal.leis, hawkers, traders, residents or any other person against tlie de.i.isinii ol W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 ffi caunected maiXers f'.riye '.13 o'f .7fl It !, >4,V ,1 / • 'I •'I . li •' [ .J I w.y li the Vending Committee(Main), was placed before the SupieiiieCoiii.l loi considel-atlohahcl the said three tie.--ad.iudicatorymechanlsn-, was .luly approved ih the judgment of Gajnda Psam

¶17•per contra/ learned counsels for the peUtioners/vendois,who appeared'on dirrereht dates, vehemently opposed the af.oiesoid st.ind -taken by'the respondent/NDMGand asserted that the scheme floated hy the respbndeht/NDMC.for_regulating vending activitiesmits Jui isdn.tion , had lapsed on 30..06.20ilIn the absenceof the ehactrhehtof alegibldtion •as pel-,directionsot the SupremeCourt In the case of GaliiclaMm^suyra). 'and as on date, there Is no'schemein existence. It was canvassei.lliiat •the Implication of the atoresald order oP status quo passed hy the SupremeCourt on 15:07.2011can onlyj-neanthat.irrespectiveot the lact •whether the ^squatting is legal or illegal, the sairie be peimitted to , continue on, an ^as is where is' basis, and such -steCas quo is to l)e » .•n-nalntalrie'dby all the parties:blla law is Prarned by. the legislature. j g, Mi-^ B-B. Sawhney^, Sr. Advocate appearing Poi' • pebtloneri/vehdoi-submittedthat in the case oP GaindaJiajllJsupLa),l Supreme Court had directed that tPie. appropriategovernmentmust eiir.K.i a Jaw oh or bePore 30.06.2011 so that the hawl<ers may precisely I<mow the contoui^s of their rights^ hence the dispute redressal mefdinni.sm provided for in the scti.erne rnehtloned in tlie aforesaid judgment (.uuld operate only upto 30.06.2011 and thereaPter, the said schGMno would : w:p.(C) 47-43'/2011, 5254/2011 a connected /natters Fnge 14 of 2H' i 'Si I - '" 1 ^ ! I ;1 , '-•!•• Butornaticanystand lapsed. He stated that no other Interpretationcan L.« given to the orderdated 15.07.2011,directingmaintenanceoP staU.inquo, in view of the qualifying-words, "as it is olDtainjngtoday . He aiyucd l.lMt if the scheme was contiinuing to operate, as' claimed by Uie lociinc(J ^counsel for the respondent/NDMC,then there was no, good reason fur the respondent/NDMCto have i'efrained from holding adiaw of lol..., wlndi was slated for the sariie day, i.e., 15.07.2011,and that fact of the inaltci js that even the respondeht/NDMChad undei'stood the s^'a^./s quu nrdor to mean that there is hO scheme in.place al^ter 30.6.2011,foi the le.ison that in para 68 of the 'afoi-eSaid.judgment ih the case of kii3!i!tla UQin t^UBJIci), all tl-ie writ petitionsand the interin'iapplicationsfiled hefoie the SiipremfeCoUrt were disposedof With dear and specificdirectionslhat the \3ro.blem' of I'iawldng .and .street vending coUkl b.e regulated by the -schemes framed-ijy the IMDMC ahd MCD only upto 30.06.20:1:1 and n,,t l;hereafter;' It Was asserted On' behalf of the petitioners/vendois tfiat a:; on dal:e^; thfe, dii'ections of the Supreme Court that status quo is lo l.'c iTiaintained'bythe parties can only be given one interpretation,which rs ttiat till a law' is ultimatelyenacted by the Pai-liairient,iri'espectiveni Ihe.ii ( . legal status', all the petitionei-s/vehdorswould be permitted to continue •• squa.tting/hawldhgat.the sites that have been Occupied by ttiern. ;i.9. • insofar as the composition of the dispute redressal mechani.Mii i.s conceri'iedj learned Senior Advocate for tl'ie petitioners submil.tei.l th-il •contrai-y to the understanding of the respondent/NDMC, l.he sclu-nie ' W.r.(c) 474-3-/2d3.1,52S4/2011 &connecled luaU.&s , J'a.W'e 'I'f of ./.ft l' • : I j " i'' , I ,Tep|-oduceclat paras'YZai1d 73 in Llie judgmenl:iii i;he case ui' Gajnda. Kani (siliDra), was not the one wlnich was actually recognized by the .Su|jioniR ' ,Court, and rather it is the dispute redressalscheme merjtioned in j.iain 7.'.> • Of.the aforesaid judg|-neilti:e., 'a scheme for urban street vendois loi ,^ NDMC anea as formulated in the year ,2006, which \A/as lilliinately •'approved by the Supreme Court on 17.05.2007, in the case of Sudhir Madan (sup,.ra,.),,, vA/hich is the scheme wtiich finds meiUion specilicnilyin the following para 74 and is the one approved by the Supreme Couii. II was contendedthat even otherwise,the National CapitalTerritoryof t.'elhi • Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 201,1 (hereinafter-referred to as 'Special •lPMro.visiioii1is•Acilt'') coiHes to the rescue of the petitioners foi' the reason that sub-clause (2) of Section 3 oP tfie Special Provisions Act mandotns ' nnaintenance of status quo as on 01.01.2006, nol:withstanding any judgment,'decree or order of any court, in respect of encroachmentor unaUtf)orized deveilopinent. Thus, it was submitted on behalP ol Ihe petitioners/vendors that they were entitled to grant of inteiim prolcdion • till the enactment of a legislation to regulate hawkiirg/vending acl.ivities in Urban streets in Delhi on the basis of the National Policy ori Url.)an .Sl.ret-it •Vendoi-s, 2009 framed oh 17.06.2009 and the Spedal Provisions Act, 2,0: VVith i-eferehce to the Special Provisions /Act, learned .''inilioi Advocate for the petitioners stated that the phrase, "ijiiaul.hori/.ed developilnent" used ih tfie definition clause ,has to be seen in Ihe .'•;rinie context as tfie one in which the phrase "encroachment" iias been defined, W.P.[C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 B. connected msl(:ers Fage 10 of 2S V • , . ji , , i ' i I .i ' i wherein.it is mentionedthat putting up of temporary,semi-temporaryor permanentstructure for residential use or commercial use or any nthei use; and tii.e iDlacementof goods on the pavements by the petitionersis liable to l.-)e telN'ned as unauthorizeduse for nlaintainiiigstatus (.|uo undci the Special-ProvisionsA\ct' Much ernphasis was laid" on t.tie aveimcnts rnade by the respondent/NDMCin Its interim applicatiofifiled beloie l.lu.! SupremeCourt in Gainda fiam's..case_.(^BrcO.ih July 2U1.L, to submit lh.,it I.) I (-1.^3 i-espondeht/NDMCitself had stated in l:he said application,•tlint Liu.: scheme had lapsed and therefore, the only interpretationthat can bo • given to the status QL/d order passed by the Supreme C:ouii. on "l5.07.20;i:lcan be that ho scheme would exist after JO.Ofi./.O.IJ -md thus, the benefitof the Special i^rovisions/-\ct ought to be extended to l.ho; petiiiioners. He submitted that the phrase ^street vendors' has been • cleai'ly defined under the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, .'.OO'J. Reliance was placed in the case oP F^.lTLyyjL|Dar Mm Town 1-iall & Oi-5. reported as (2009) .12 SCC 475 and the .provisiohsof the Special Provisions/Act to submit that even the Supiomo Court' had recognized the fact that the Special ProvisionsAct i-S the only •Central law governing the field and it would'have primacy ovci oilier Statutes and administrative" ordei-s. It is thus stated that the provi.siunr: of the NDMC Act cannot be invoked by the respondeht/NI3MCas the said Act is not in consonance witl'i Article 96 of the Cohstltutioi'i oi Indi.i intd furthermore, •the Special Provisions Act being' valid till the end ol Wr.P-CCJ •^•7-43/2011, 525-'t,/2013. S connected mstters Paije J 7 (ff 1' • :il ' ' ; y- '•K..- I I ! r t , . • I ' .December2011, ho orders In derogationof the provisionsof ll<e snid AcJ. can be passed:

¶21Mr.' SdC TripaU-U,, Advocate appearing for some of |Uie petitioners/vendorssduglnt.to embellish the submissionsoP l^'Ir.Sawlmey, Sr.Advodate sihd relied On the orders passed in W.,ll^.(C) :ll.449/20.11.1 entitled, Mni.d'. .Tc;mml vs. NDMC;_J,.,0j:5. to Urge that the "Aiipc^llate Authority" constituted under the dispute redressai rnechanisin loi l.he NDMC area, has not been functioning,whicl') fact he stated is boine uul . iTomia perusal of the order dated OS.03.2011 passed in the nfnrosaki case, wlierein the Court took notice of the claim of the petitioner/vendor •• therein-to, the effect, that inspite of ordei-s pasSed by tlie Appellate •AUtliority all.owifiq squattingat a pai'ticularsite, till a final•det(..imination by the Vending Committeeas to^ his eligibility;the respondent/MDML:and the poiitie were 'disturbing his activities. In the aforesaid order, the statement of the. counsel for the resi3ondent/l\lL")MCWas recorded to the effectthat the appellateauthority,whose order was being relied up(,)ii by the petitionertherein,was constitutedinitiallyfor the MCD aieas and latei started functioning,for the IMDMC areas as well for Llie reason liial; at Lhni. . time, .there was no separate-.appellate autliority for the MDML areas, hul. subsequently, in accordance with the scheme approved by tlie .'.JLipreme CoLirt, the CtiairperSon;; l\|DMC had constituted a separate apiiellale auttiority. foi' -the NDMC. ai"eas; I'tierefore, the appellate appointed ecii'liei' had ceased to have jUlisdiction qua tl'ie NDMC area.'.. W.P'.(C)47->!l3/-20ii,S2S4-/20i:l. & connected ihsiters ' Page III U'f ZS I -N- /! • ' i J was thus contended on behalf of the petidoneis/vendois thni thi-aforesaidorder clearly Indicatesthat the appellateauthority In tlie Ixil.^Mi.. areas is nol. runcLioning.

¶22Reliance was also placed on Lhe n-iinul-es of l:he. meoLing nl l.lu^ Vending Committeedated 11.03.20.1.0,to claim thai: iP the fact of whctht.. theie was actual squatting/vendingwas verified by the C-ommittcc <ind il the names of the petitioners/vendorsfigured in Lhe eligibilitylist r.iep,.iod by the respondent/NDHCfor holding the draw of lots, then it did nol lie m the mouth of the respondent/MDMCto claim diat the petitioners,wlm had been verified'and found to be eligible, were not entitled to .s(|Mat at various sil:es in the NDMC area after .30.06.2011.

¶23In rebuttal, counsel for the respondent/NI^MC dis|..uled lh(! contentions of the petitioners/vendorsand while reiterating lu.r c.nilior submissions, asserted that, the petitioners did not have any legally enforceable right, created on the basis of the eligibility list diawn by NDMC,, for claiming,grant of interim orders iri their favoui . referred to p'aras 68, 69, 7b, 76 and 78 of the judgment i GaindcL,AmXsj=lliral,to empliasize tliat when the afoiesaid pr.ii n.s mo. read collectively, it is clear ttiat the petitioners c entitlement to any interim orders as sougfit by them proceedings. .Sfie furtfier stated that even otheiwise, lhe .ipcci [••'rovisions Act relied upon by the petitioners-has duly recogni/ed II VM.P.iCj4743/2011, 5254/ZOij. & cuirnecf.e'f iriafCers '••;ho. again he "f he pie.soi •'aye .19 of 2n ''/•A ^ ,A • \ I I schemes prepared by tine local ciuthorities in the National Capital Iciriloiy dF Delhi for regulation oP urbai-i street vendors. To substantiate Ihe said submission, she drew the attention ot this Court to the preamble oP the, aforesaid Act; which inention.sthe fact that all the schemes |jre|;)ared by the local authorities in the National Capital Territory of Uelhi, loj .regulationof ui-ban street vendors in accordancewith the National I'olu.y on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 and the Master Plan Per I3elhi I, have been in-iplehaente,d and further that more tilrie is required tor pi'opt-i' imiplementation oP the schemes regarding hawkers and urban stieel • vendors^ ' 2,4. /-\ specific rePerence was made by the learned courrsel Poi tho respondeht/NDMCto Section 2(l)(c) of the Special ProvisionsAct, which defines the phrase "enci^oachment"to claim that it does not cove,i tlio petil1onei-shei'ein, who are squatters. FurtherrePerencewa.s made to the provision oP Section 3 oP the Special ProvisionsAct, which contain obstante clause, to state that status quo with regard to ttie encroaci or unauthorized development as on 01,01.2006, rhentioned in llu^: Si,iid I'jrovision, was ii'i . the context oP the ciePii'iitioi ol th(.'. phur.-i,,.. "encroachment" and "unauthoiized development" set out in tlie delinilion clause at Sections 2(l)(c) and 2(l)(i) respectively ol" iPie ,Spe(i.il l^i-ovlsions Act and thus, the petitioners/vendors did not quality under thr; aforesaid enacti-nerit Por clain-iihg protection as none oP ttie ingredi(,vnl.ssel out in the provisions oP l:he aPoresaid enactment are Pound to exTst in l.heii" hV.P.fCJ 47-^3/201 j, 5254/2011 Si connected luaiiers /-"aye 2(P 2U

rf <• IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 ———4347/2011. 455Q/>nil 4593/2ni1 /Ltuni-irm 4^50/2011, 4651/2011'. 5028/2011. 4775/7nil' ----^nn.l' CJC4/^Ull' 5282/2011. 52S3/7Q11. ^ 5?77/2011, S292/2Q11. S312/2Q11. 5317/?nii - —5403/2011, 5405/2011. 5408/2011 mun/jnn S42l;'°i;' 5473/2011, 5484/2011^ 5497/2011 eszLon/'inii 5503/2011. 5S04/>f.1l' 5508/2011, 5595/2011^ 5614/2011, 5615/^nn Kniei/int 5618/2011,;—5627/2011.5630/2011. 5631/2011 5643/7011 5645/2011. .S654/?nil' ^c^^Ol/ 5718/2011: 5728/7nil' llllilVA' 5739/2011. .^74^/2011. .i57«i/7niii E7ol'^Ult' 5794/7011, 5797/7(111 5S31/7m^ 5911/2011. 5918/2011. 5928/2011. 5931/2011, 5933/2011. 59.^4/2011. S9.'^i;/7nii 5957/2011 —5966/2011. 5967/2011- 5968/2011. 5Q6Q/7nii 6096/2011. 6100/2011. 6101/2011. 6102/2011,—6107/2011. 6108/211^ 6114/2Q11 6115/2011 6117/2011, 6118/2011. 6119/2011. 6120/201l! 6270/2m^ ^123/2011. 6144/2011, 6250/2011. 6270/2011,—6271/2011. 6449/2011, 6527/2Q11 6528/2011 6ii;29/201i; 6530/2ni/ fi«i^,.oii' 6555/2011. Sfifi7/2011. fiBfi«/7nil g684/20tl. S7Q1/2Q11. 4739/201 Ij,—5046/2011. 5051/2011. ^tfi7/on-\-i 4649/2011 2601/2011, 2602/2011. 3052/2011. 3181/2nii, 3185/2011, 3189/2011. 3196/2011. 0.-^0.1%/-ynii 4342/2011 4343/2011^_4M4/2011.4345/2011 ^^^9/2011 A^itin/ont 4352/2011, 43_54/2011. 435fi/2nii 4365,2011, 4366/2011. 4367/2011. 4368/2011. 436Q/2nii 4373/2ni/ —^^77/2011j—4387/2011. 4388/2011. 4389/2011. 4391/2011, 4392/2011, 4393/2011. 4395/2011. 43Qfi/2nii 4398/2011, 4399/2011, 4400/2011. 44Q2/20ti, ^405/2011, 4406/2011. 4407/2011. 4408/2011^ 4413/2011. 4414/2011. ^341/2011, 4847/2011. 4859/2011. 4887/2011. 4990/2011. W.P.CC)4347/2011andconnectedmatters Page1of8 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. SQ63/20X1. 5089/2011, 5099/2011. 5114/2011. 5115/7nil 5117/2011^—5129/2011. 5139/2011. 5144/2011, 6708/2011 6799/2011, 6824/2011. 6825/2011. 6826/2011. 6827/7011 6896/2011, 6901/2011. 6902/2011. 6903/2Q1l' 6904/2Q11. 6905/2011, 6906/2011. 6907/2011. 6908/2011. 690Q/7nii 6910/2011, 6917/2011. 6919/2011. 6920/?nii 6921/2011 6922/2011. 6932/2011 and 5420/2011. ' THE MATTERS QF MOHD. AZAD Petitionerin W.P.(C)4347/2011 MOHD. ALAM Petitionerin W.P.(C)4559/2011 KIRPAL SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4593/2011 SHAILENDERKUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C)4610/2011 SANJAY Petitionerin W.P.(e)4650/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4651/2011 AMAR NATH SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4827/2011 GANESH PRASAD Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4923/2011 BHUPALSINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5024/2011 SURENDERSINGH AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5028/2011 ^SHA Petitionerin W.P.(C)4775/2011 RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5247/2011 RAM DASS Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5254/2011 VISHAMBARJHA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5255/2011 DINESH KUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5257/2011 ...... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5258/2011 RAJESH CGUPTA AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.rC) 5261/2011 lAKHPATIAND ORS. Petitionersin W.P,(C) 5262/2011 SOHAN LAL AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5263/2011 KEDARI Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5264/2011 ARUN KUMAR ALIAS LUCKY Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5277/2011 Mnwn PetitionerIn W.P.(C) 5292/20U MUMU. ZAHID Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5312/2011 SHAKEELAHMED Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5317/2011 NAND KISHORE Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5402/2011 RINKU KUMAR GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5403/2011 KAUR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5405/2011 NARESH KUMAR RAO AND ORS Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5408/2011 -..Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5410/2011 vABi MAbAN Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5411/2011 HARENDERPRASAD Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5413/2011 BHUPINDERSINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5418/2011 GOVIND SINGH AND ANR. ..... Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5423/2011 BAL CHAND GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5444/2011 MUNNA THAKUR@RAMESH THAKUR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5-173/2011 W.P.(C}4347/2Q11andconnectedmatters pgg^2of8 ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. .... Petitioners in W.P.(C SUNDER SINGH Petitioner in W.P.(C DHARAf^ VEER SINGH Petitioner in W.P.(C MAHESH PAL SINGH Petitione