Md. Shamshad Alam v. Ndmc and Ors

"-- / '- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on:

24.10.2011 + W.P.{C) 4347/2011, 4559/2011, 4593/2011. 4610/2011, 4650/2011, 4651/2011, 4827/2011, 4923/2011, 5024/2011, 5028/2011. 4775/2011, 5247/2011, 5254/2011, 5255/2011, 5257/2011, 5258/2011, 5261/2011. 5~62/2011. 5263/2011, 5264/2011, 5277/2011, 5292/2011, 5312/2011, 5317/2011, 5402/2011, 5403/2-011. 5405/2011, 5408/2011, 5410/2011, 5411/2011. 5413/2011, 5418/2011. 5423/2011. 5444/2011, 5473/2011, 5484/2011, 5485/2011, 5497/2011, 5498/2011, 5503/2011, 5504/2011. 5505/2011, 5506/2011, 5507/2011, 5508/2011, 5595/2011, 5614/2011, 5615/2011, 5616/2011, 5618/2011, 5627/2011, 5630/2011, 5631/2011, 5643/2011, 5645/2011, 5654/2011, 5656/2011, 5711/2011, 5717/2011, 5718/2011, 5728/2011, 5729/2011, 5731/2011, 5732/2011, 5737/2011, 5738/2011, 5739/2011, .5743/2011. 5761/2011, 5784/2011, 5785/2011, 5791/2011, 5794/2011, 5797/2011, 5798/2011, 5822/2011, 5911/2011, 5918/2011, 5928/2011, 5931/2011, 5933/2011, 5934/2011, 5935/2011, 5957/2011, 5965/2011. 5966/2011, 5967/2011, 5968/2011. 5969/2011, 5970/2011, 5974/2011, 6096/2011, 6100/2011, 6101/2011, 6102/2011. 6107/2011, 6108/211, 6114/2011. 6115/2011. 6116/2011, 6117/2011, 6118/2011, 6119/2011, 6120/2011, 6121/2011, 6122/2011, 6123/2011, 6144/2011, 6250/2011, 6270/2011, 6271/2011, 6449/2011.· 6527/2011. 6528/2011, 6529/2011, 6530/2011, 6531/2011, 6532/2011, 6533/2011, 6534/2011, 6538/2011, 6555/2011, 6667/2011, 6668/2011, 6669/2011. 6670/2011. 6684/2011. 6701/2011. 5173/2011, 4739/2011, 5046/2011, 5051/2011, 5157/2011, 4649/2011, 4722/2011, 2601/2011, 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. 4360j2011, 4361/2011, 4362/2011, 4363/2011, 4364/2011, 4365/2011, 4366/2011, 4367/2011£ 4368/2011. 4369/2011.

437.0/2011. 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, ~398/2011, 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, 5341/7011, 4847/2011. 4859/2011. 4887/2011, 4990/2011, W.IP.(C) 4347/2011 and connected matters Page 1 ofB -;- ~ 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. -,- ~- 5063/2011, 5089/2011, 509912011, . 5114/2011. 5115/2011, 5117/2011, 5129/2011~ 5139/2011, 5144/2011, 6708/2011, 6799/2011. 6824/2011, 6825/2011, 6826/2011. 6827/2011, 6896/2011, 6901/2011, 6902/2011, 6903/2011, 6904/2011, 6905/2011. 6906/2011, 6907/2011, 6908/2011, 6909/2011, 6910/2011, 6917/2011, 6919/2011, 6920/2011, 6921/2011. 6922/2011, 6932/2011 and 5420/2011. IN THE MATTERS Of MOHD.AZAD l\10HD. ALArvJ KIRPAL SINGH SHAILENDER KUMAR SANJAY BABLU AMAR NATH SINGH GANESH PRASAD BHUPAL SINGH SURENDER SINGH AND ORS. USHA RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS. RAM DASS VISHAMBAR JHA DINESH KUMAR ANJU RAJESH C GUPTA AND ORS. LAKHPATI AND ORS. SOHAN LAL AND ORS. KEDARI ARUN KUMAR ALIAS LUCKY MITHU LAL MOHO. ZAHID SHAKEEL AHMED NAND KISHORE RINKU KUMAR GUPTA HARJEET KAUR NARESH KUMAR RAO AND ORS. , RAJU , NAB! HASAN HARENDER PRASAD BHUPINDER SINGH GOVIND SINGH AND ANR. SAL CHAND GUPTA ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4347/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4559/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4593/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4610/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4650/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4651/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4827/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4923/201~ ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5024/2011 ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5028/2011 . .... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4775/2011 ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5247/2011 . .... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5254/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5255/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5257/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5258/2011 ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5261/2011 . .... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5262/2011 .., .. Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5263/2011 .. ... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5264/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5277/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5292/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5312/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5317/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5402/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5403/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5405/2011 ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5408/2011 .. ... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5410/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5411/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5413/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5418/2011 ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5423/2011 .. ... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5444/2011 MUNNA THAKUR@ RA~·1ESH THAKUR ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5173/2011 W.P.(C) 4347/2011 and connected matters Page 2 of8 ,-- ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. SUNDER SINGH DHARAt-11 VEER SINGH MAHESH PAL SINGH RAJ RANI DULl CHAND SHANTA RAM MAHENDER PAL PAWA#-K--IJMAP'" £-I-N-GI=! TARUN KUMAR RAVINDER KUMAR DINESH YADAV RAM BAHADUR ANIL KUMAR GUPTA RAM AVTAR SHANKAR LAL PADAM SINGH MEENA !V!OHD. HASMAT VIPIN PRASAD SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA BABU K.HAN VIJAY KUMAR SHASHIKUMARPANDEY PREMA SINGH PURAN CHAND OMKAR GUPTA KUfvJER RAJ ENDER BHAGNARAYAN YADAV KARAN VIR MATA PRASAD YADAV BABU LAL RAMESH CHAND LAXMI BHAGWAN SAHAI P~A.M N!\IVAS NAVIN SINGH DHARAM RAJ YADAV VINOD KESHRI ANIL SINGH WIRANJAN DEV KULDEEP SHANKLA. SURENDER KHURANA @ NE~RU SURESH BABU . ... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5484/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5485/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5497/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5498/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5503/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5504/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5505/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5506/2011 . . . . . R-e-t-illone+--i-P-,--W.E_,(_q. 5502,l20 11 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5508/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5595/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5614/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5615/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5616/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5618/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5627/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5630/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5631/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5643/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5645/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5654/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5656/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5711/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5717/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5718/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5728/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5729/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5731/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5732/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5737/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5738/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5739/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5743/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5761/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5784/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5785/2011 ..... Petitioner in W~P~(C) 5791/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5794/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5797/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5798/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5822/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5911/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5918/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5928/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5931/2011 W.P.(C) 4347./2011 and connected matters Page 3 ofB I ,:- ~ ,- •i GULSHAN KUMAR Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5933/2011 PAVYAN KUMAR Pettttef}ef4n-W7P-.-(€) 5934/2011 SUBHASH SHRIVASTAV Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5935/2011 FMM RAJ ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5957/2011 AJAY KUjViAR Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5965/2011 RAMESH CHANDER @ RAMESH CHAND. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5966/2011 VINOD KHANA Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5967/2011 KISHAN iJ\L Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5968/2011 MOHAN LAL Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5969/2011 SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5970/2011 PRADEEP GUPTA Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5974/2011 RAM KUMAR Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6096/2011 SUNEHRI LAL Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6100/2011 BHAGIRATHI CHOURASIYA Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6101/2011 MOHD. SHARIQ Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6102/2011 KARUNA SHANKAR PANDEY Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6107/2011 VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner in \A/.P.(C) 6108/2011 MD. SHAMSHAD ALAM Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6114/2011 VIRENDER Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6115/2011 TRILOK CHAND Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6116/2011 VINOD Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6117/2011 SALIM KHAN ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6118/2011 SATYA PRAKASH Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6119/2011 SANJAY KAUSHIK Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6120/2011 REHMAT ALI KHAim Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6121/2011 INDULESH Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5122/2011 ANIL KUMAR BISHT Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6123/2011 KAMLESH DEVI YADAV Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6144/2011 CHARAN SINGH Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6250/2011 ARUN SINGH Petitioner in.W.P.(C) 6270/2011 SATISH KUMAR PUSHKARNA Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6271/2011 SHIV NARAIN SAHU Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6449/2011 CHAND KAPOOR Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6527/2011 Jl \ENDER KU^^^AR Petitioner in VV.P.(C) 6528/2011 RAJ KUMAR Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6529/2011 PAPPU Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6530/2011 BASANT LAL TIWARI Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6531/2011 NEPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6532/2011 SURENDER SAINI Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6533/2011 BHAWANI SINGH Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6534/2011 MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA Petitioner in W.P.(C) 653,8/2011 RAM KISHAN Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6555/2011 U\[^ RAM Petitioner in VV.P.(C) 6667/2011 PRAKASH Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6668/2011 BALWANT SINGH Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6669/2011 W.P.(C} 4347/2011 and connected matters Page 4 ofS 'h DINESH KISHORI LAL BACHU SINGH ANIL KUMAR SURESH GUPTA RAJ BAHADUR MAHENDRA PRASAD AND ORS. RAMU SIMANT SHARMA RAM SINGH AND ORS. VINAY KUMAR SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA ROHAN SHARMA KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS. RAM PRAKASH SURAJ SINGH VEER SINGH SURENDRA SINGH USHA SUBHASH DASU RAM YADAV SURENDER V-' LOKENDER SUNITA BHAGWAT SWAROOP GUPTA SHAKAL SINGH NARENDER KUMAR BRD PAL RAJU ASHOK f JAI CHHABRA BINDU DEVI MOHD. MUZAHID AND ANR. KAMLESH UJJAINWAL KISHAN DEVICHARAN ANJU SHOBHA JEET SEHGAL POONAM RANA YUSUF KHAN SHANTI BASANTI AND ORS. RAJ KUMARI GUDDI W.P.(C} 4347/2011 and connected matters Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6670/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6684/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6701/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5173/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4739/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5046/2011 Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5051/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5157/2011 , Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4649/2011 , Petitioners in W.P.(C) 4722/2011 , Petitioner in W.P.(C) 2601/2011 , Petitioner in W.P.(C) 2602/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3052/2011 . Petitioners in W.P.(0)3181/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3185/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3189/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3196/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4340/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4342/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4343/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4344/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4345/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4349/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4350/2011 . Petitioner in W,P.(C) 4352/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4354/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4356/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4358/2011 . Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4359/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4360/2011 ,. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4361/2011 ,. Petitioner in W,P.(C) 4362/2011 .. Petitioners in W.P.(C) 4363/2011 .. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4364/2011 .. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4365/2011 ., Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4366/2011 .. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4367/2011 .. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4368/2011 .. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4369/2011 .. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4370/2011 .. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4371/2011 .. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4372/2011 .. Petitioners in W.P.(C) 4373/2011 ., Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4374/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4375/2011 Page S of 8 LATA HARISH KUMAR OM PRAKASH PATHAK GOVIND PRASAD GUPTA ANIS AHMED MOHD. KHURSHID SAMARTH PRASAD YADAV MADAN SINGH RAWAT AND MOHD. IMRAN G AN PAT RAI BHURA YADAV ARUN KUMAR BANSAL RAVINDER @ RAVI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA HARISH CHAND PRAMOD VIJAY KUMAR SINGH JAIVIR SINGH ASHOK JAISWAL DALIP KUMAR GUPTA AMIRUDIN LAXMAN JAI SINGH PAL Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4377/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4387/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4388/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4389/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4391/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4392/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4393/2011 ANR Petitioners in W.P.(C) 4395/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4396/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4397/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4398/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4399/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4400/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4402/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4404/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4405/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4406/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4407/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4408/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4409/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4410/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4412/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4413/2011 Petitioner in V\/.P.(C) 4414/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5341/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4847/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4859/2011 Petitioner in, W.P.(C) 4887/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4990/2011 ORS Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5063/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5089/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5099/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5114/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5115/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5117/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5129/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5139/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5144/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6708/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6799/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6824/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6825/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6826/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6827/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6896/2011 ASHOK KUMAR YaDAV MOHD. ALI CHOTTE LAL SYED RIZWAN ALI MANOJ KUMAR RAJA BABU PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA AND MEENA DEVI GUDIYA @ GUDDI RAJU SINGH SURAJ DEV PASWAN PANKAJ PANDEY BRD MOHAN ALIAS SASHI PREM MASSEY CHANDER PAL SINGH NARENDER KUMAR SHIV NANDAN PRASAD PAWAN KUMAR SANJEEV AGGARWAL SANTOSH AGGARWAL NARENDER KUMAR RAJ KUMAR }N.P.{C) 4347/2011 and connected matters V ASHA RANI MD. TAIYAB MEENA DEVI MOHAMMAD IKRAMUL HAK SURAJ KUMAR PRAKASH CHAND MEENA RAVINDER KUMAR BDENDER ASHWNI KAPOOR JAMIRUDDIN DIRCNDER SINGH SHYAM SUNDER RAJIV KUMAR MAHESH RAM KUMAR NAND LAL GUPTA SUSHIL KUMAR versus NDMC & ORS. Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner , Petitioner n W.P.(C) 6901/2011 n W.P.(C) 5902/2011 n W.P.(C) 6903/2011 n W.P.(C) 6904/2011 n W.P.(C) 6905/2011 n W.P.(C) 6906/2011 n W.P.(C) 6907/2011 n W.P.(C) 6908/2011 n W.P.(C) 6909/2011 n W.P.(C) 6910/2011 n W.P.rO 6917/2011 n W.P.(C) 6919/2011 n W.P.(C) 6920/2011 n W.P.(C) 6921/2011 n W.P.(C) 6922/2011 n W.P.(C) 6932/2011 n W.P.(C) 5420/2011 Respondents Present: Ma^ B. B. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankan Suri, Mr. Lai<shay Sawhney, Mr. Ankur Suri and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh, Mr. Anand Shailani, Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Mr. R.N.Singh, Mr. M.R. Singh, Mr. Ramesh K. Mishra, Mr. Surender Pandit, Mr. Navjot Kumar, Mr. Mahendra Singh, Mr.Sunder Lai Juneja, Mr. Pranesh, Mr. B.B. Bhatia, Mr. Navjot Kumar and Mr. Satish Chand Gupta, Mr Pranesh, Mr. Sahil Kapoor, Ms. S. Fatima, Mr. Jagdeep Kr. Sharma, Ms. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Rupinder Kaur, Ms. Ferida Satarawala, Mr. R.N. Singh, Mr. Vikas Batra, Mr. V.P. Rana and Mr. Navjot Kumar, Advocates for the petitioners. Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Ms. Sidhi Arora, Mr. Vinod Kumar, Mr.Arjun Pant, Mr. Ashutosh Lohia and Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Advocates for the respondent/NDMC., Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel, Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Mr. Sanjay Sahay, Ms. Farida Satarwala Chopra, Mr. Sachin Datta, Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar and Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for the respondent/GNCTD. Vv.P.(C} 4347/2G11 and connectedmstters Ms. Navratan Chaudhary, Mr, H5. Sachdeva, Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr. Vikram Aggarwal and Mr. Shariq Mohammad, Advocates for the respondent/Delhi Police. CORAM HON'BlE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

¶1Whether Reporters of Loca! papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶2To be~ referred to the Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

HIMA KOHli, J. For detailed judgment, see WP(C) No.4743/2011. The Registry is directed to place a copy of the judgment passed in WP(C) No.4743/2«rr1 m this--me~- OCTOER 24th , 2011 rkb W.P.(C) 4347/2011 and connected matters ~-~ (HIMA KOHli) JUDGE Page 8 ofB * IN THE HIGH COUR"f OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : _2,1_,_Q9_,_2Q11 Pronou need on: c0?1__,__10. 2011 + W.IP.(C) 474.3/2011 a!Jlld 5254/2011 lNTHf_iVI.f\JTERS OF SHIV 1\IA l H CHOUDHARY ,P!\!VI DASS versUs 1\JDMC & ORS. ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4743/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5254/2011 ..... Respondents _l.\~OQ_qwii"!th VV.P.(C) 2601/2011, 2602/70:iL1, 3051./201;L. ~l~ifl[!.{U_,_l'--4559/2011" 4593/2011, 46l0/2011, 465f0l/2011._ :R·65i]./l,Q~J,.L_ 4649/2011, 4722/2011, 47'39/201 :iLK 5046/Z_Qil,_ o5Jli5l/2~1L ___ ~157 /2011, 4lZJU2011r 4827/201:L 4923l21Dl1L_ fU0:2>:'l,[20l1v_ 5028/2011, 5247/2011, 5255/2011, 5257/2011x 5258/2{911, 5261/2011~262/2011, 5263/2011, 5264/2011£. %:-~2T!(flOlL_ 5292/2011, 5312L2011, 5317/2011,, 5402/20l1-'- .!j.c].(Jl3/2.0ll,_!5420 /20!JL: _ _1!405 !2011, 5408/2011, 5'-llO /2011, _2_;_~11/2011, 5413{2011, 5418/2011, 5423/201!_,__ 5444D01].L :s;.c~tZ_JLHU.1, !':~434/2011, 54:85_12011, 5497/2011, 549SL20JJL._ :"rlf'li'J' r~"""·1~ ,--61\.AI f'ill11\11. !l:;!e:OOil:: ·~,,..~11 ssn.!IC:;2n:iL1 s· iCR\\7/21f''11 j( ~~~;J_~;p_.L..i...'-'I.D~,:j)~U1.:Jt.J~LU v ~~;:]~ L\J,.o i' U\Lll;. 'LV. .L :J'I\...u. !)~:.....-:.~ 5 SfHi/ 20 lJL 5 59 5/2011, 5 614 L 2011, 5 615/20 11-L--.~Q 11. 56).8 l_;l:(l}j_]_" 5627/2.011, S630 /2011, 5631/2011, 5643 Q_fQJ!, :iLL ~64SL;;£.0Lll.)l__ 5654/2011, 5t;_56_12_011, 5711/2011, 5717/2011, f~_l:iLB/20lL !5728/2011, 5729/201.1, 5731/2011, 5732/;2.011,_ ~}~7/2011, 5738/?011, 57~9/2011, 5743/2011, 5761/20~LL :57~14/2011, 5785/2011, 579'1/20!1, 5794/2011,. 579ll201Jh _;57~8/2011, 5822/2011, 5911/2011, 5918/2011, 5928/20llv_ .59l31/2f!~.!.L 5933/2011, 5934/2011, 5~2011, 5957/2011, ~65/201_1_. 5966/2011, 5967/2011., 5968LlQ11, 5969/2011, ~i~?.Q_,/2011, 5974/2011L 6096/2011, 6100/2011, 6101/20]JL_ §:Yl\,_n;J;L:?.01_L__6107/2011, 6108/2011, 6114/2011, 6115/ZOL~r. §1!.§l~(.Ql]l...L ___ 6117 /1.011, 6118/2011, 6119_L2011, 6120_1201!f_ l~~/L2t/20lL 6122/2011. 6123/2011, 6144/7011, 62.50L;I01L ~7fi''0/201.L 627:n.L2011, 6449/201L 6527 ~6528fJ01l_,_ §5.?3!120lL_ 65.30[2011. 653"8 /2011, 6532/2011, 6533/2011 ... § ~;3_:"U 2'. o l L__ 6 53 8/2 o 11, 6 s s 5/2 o 11, 517 3/2 o 11, 3181 L 2 o 1 L_ JJ85L?Jtt:L_ 3189£2011, 3196/2'.011, 4340/2011, 434_ll20JJL. )!'o'.P.(C) 4174'3j2UJ.1, 5254/2011 & connected matters Page .1. of 28 --~- ~ 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, 4396/2011L 4397/2011, 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, 5063/2011, 5089/2011, 5099/2011, 5114/2011. 5115/2011, 5117/2011, 5129/2011, 5139/2011, 5144/2011, 6667/2011, 5668/2011, 6669/2011, 6670/2011, 6684/2011, 6701/2011, 6708/2011L 6799/2011, 6824/2011, 6825/2011, 6826/2011, 6877/2011, 6896/2011c 6901/2011, 6902/2011, 6903/2011, 6904/2011, 6905/2011, 6906/2011, 6907/2011,. 6903/2011, ~909/2011! 6910/2011, 6917/2011, ij919/2011, 6920/2011! 6921[2011e 6922/2011 and 6932/2011, Present: IVJr. B. B. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankan Suri, IVJ1-. Lakshay Sawhney, IVJr. Ankur Suri and MI-. Sunil l<umal-, Advocates for the petitioners. !Vir. Sumit Kumar Singh, Mr. Anand Shailani, !VII-. Sati.sh Kumar Tripathi, Mr. 1\1.1<. Sahoo, Mr. R.N.Singh, MI-. M.R. Singll, !Vir. Ramesh K. !VIishra, Mr. Surender Pandit, Mr. Navjol l<umar, Mr: !VIahendra Singh, !VIr.Sunder Lal Juneja, IVJr. Pranesh, !Vir. B.B. Bhatia, Mr. 1\lavjot Kumar and Mr. Satish Chand Gupta, rvJr. Pranesh, Mr. Sahil l<apoor, Ms. S. Fatima, Mr. Jagdeep Kr. Sharma, Ms. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Rupincler Kaur, Ms. Fel-icia Satarawala, Mr. R.N. Singh, Mr. Vikas .Batra, Mr.; V.P. Rana and Mr. 1\lavjot Kumar, Advocates fo1~ the petitionNs. Ms. Maclhu Tewatia, !Vis. Sidhi Arora, MI-. Vinod Kumar, Mr.Arjun Pant, !Vir. Ashutosh Lohia and Mr. Vinocl Waclhwa, Advocates for the respondent/NDMC. !Vile_ 1\lajmi Waziri, Standing Counsel, Mr. Bhupesh 1\laru!a, MI-. Sanjay Sa hay, Ms. Farida Satarwala Chopra, Mr. Sa chin Datta, !Vir. Abhimanyu Kumar and Ms. Rachna Sa)(ena, Advocates for the respondent/GNCTD. IVJs. 1\lavratan Chaudhary, MI-. H.S. Sachdeva, MI-. D. W.P.{C) 4743/2011r 5254/2011 & connected matters Rajeshwar Rao, Mr. Vikram Aggarwal . and Mr. Shal-iq IVJohammad, Advocates for the ,-espondent/Delhi Police.- COIRA~VJl fi-tlON'!BliE MS.JIJJSTICIE HIMA KOHli

¶1Whethel-Reporters of Local papers may be a I lowed to see the Judgment?

¶2To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? lHlJOVJIA KOIHlli, J. --l IYQ-j

¶1This common judgment shall dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioners/vendors as the issues ,-aised in these wl-it petitions are common. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P.(C) 4743/2011 a1-e taken llOte of.

¶2The focus of the lengtlly al-guments addressed by both sides ,-evolves around an order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the SuJxeme Court on some miscellaneous applications presented in W.P.(C) Hii9'9l/l9:S7 entitled G__gjnda Rarn & Ors. vs. 1\JDMC & Ors., which matter was decided on 08.10.2010 by issuing exhaustive. directions. Before proceeding to deal with the respective arguments addressed by the learned counsels fol-the petitioners/vendors and the respondent/NDMC, it would be appropriate to set out the aforesaid ol-der elated 15.07.2011, which is the bone of contention and is reproduced hereinbelow:- "Heard learned counsel fo1-the applicants and perused the record. W.P:(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters Since judgment of this Court has so far-not been implemented, inasmuch as appropriate legislation has not been enacted by the competent legislature, we dir-ect the parties to maintain the status quo as it is obtaining today."

¶3It was the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC that the aforesaid order issued by the Supreme Cour-t, calling upon the parties to maintain status quo as obtaining on

15.07.2011 1 can only be interpreted to mean that the extensive directions issued earlier, on 08.10.2010, in the case of Gainda Ram CsuQra}r-epor-ted as (2.010) 10 sec 715 shall continue to remain in operation, including the adjudicatory mechanism provided for by the 1\JDMC in the scheme presented by it before the Supreme Court and approved in the said judgment, till the appropriate government enacts a law for-regulating urban street hawkers and street vendor-s. It was stated that simply because the legislature has not enacted a law in this regard on or before

30.06.2011, as directed in the aforesaid judgment, it cannot be contended by the petitioners/vendors that there exists a vacuum and the said vacuum can no longer be filled up by continuing to regulate the vending activities in the 1\JDMC jurisdiction in the manner as set out in the afm·esaid judgment.

¶4To give a brief background of the dispute, learned counsel for the respondent/1\JDMC walked this Court through some prominent decisions of the Supreme Court render-eel from time to time, which r-elate to pavement lirlf.P.(C) 4.743/201.1, 5254/2011 & connected matters squatters/hawkers, starting from the decision in the case of ;2odail~l1 y;;,,I\IQJ:'1~-~-_Qr~~ reported as (1998) 2. sec 72.7, the interim order elated

03.03.2006 passed by the Supreme Court in V\ff.P.(C) 1699/1987 entitled Sudhir IVIaclan & Ors. vs. IVICD, the final judgment in the case of Sudhir Madan Csuprg} reported as (2.010l9) 17 sec 597 and lastly, the judgment dated 08.10.2010 passed in the case of Gain_da Ram (supra).

¶5Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC vehemerltly opposed the prayer of the petitioners/vendors for grant of interim order-s r-estraining the respondent/N DMC from removing them from the sites occupied by them till the enactment of an appropriate legislation, in ter-ms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the. case of Gaincla Ram _(~]]}. She particularly refer-red to the observatiorls made by lhe Supreme Court in paras 40 and 41 of the judgment in the !=<;!Se of Sodan _Sir)gJJ _(21JRT9}, which dealt with the immediate eviction of unauthorized squatters/hawkers and laid emphasis on the fact that in the said case, the Supr-eme Court had directed removal of unauthorized squatters/hawkers without awaiting final allotment of sites to be allotted to eligible claimants at the places recommended by the Thareja Committee or-suggested by the NDMC.

¶6Again, in the interim order dated 03.03.2006 passed in _;;udl1lr !VIaclan's case (supra), the following observation made by the Supreme Court was highlighted by the counsel for the respondent/NDMC:- W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters "While we undertake this exercise,. we direct the Authorities to see to it that those persons, who are carrying on hawking activities or who al-e squatting on public land without any authority, even in accol-dance with the present day scheme in force, are removed forthwith. This includes unauthorized hawking, squatting on public streets, footpaths and public parks, including playground. We direct the Delhi AdministJ-ation to take steps immediately in collaboration with MCD and NDMC with necessary assistance from Dellli Police to clear the roads, streets, footpaths, parks etc. by unauthorized occupants/ squatters/hawkers."

¶7As to the judgment dated 17.05.2007 rendel-ed in the case of ,;;;JLJQ[lir Mg_9an __ (_~l.Q@), much emphasis was la1d by the counsel for the ,-espondent/NDMC on paras 28 to 30 and 35, which are reproduced heJ-einbelow for ready reference:- "28. The New Delhi Municipal Committee has also submitted its Scheme. We have considered the Scheme submitted before us. The area which falls under NDMC does not create problems such as those in the al-eas under MCD. However, in the said Scheme reference has been made to persons who do not have pel-mission under Section 225 or licence under Section 330 of the NDIVIC Act, 1994 but who are unauthol-isedly continuing to caiTY on business as hawkers/street vendors. They have been described as those who are "tolerated" in the . NDIVIC area. We fail to understand why any pel-son who violates the law should be tolerated. Eitl~er they should be compelled to obey the law or the law may be suitably amended, if it is found to create undue hardship. The problems need to be addressed by the legislature or the rulemaking authority. We, therefore, observe that if it is felt that the pel-sons who fall in this category ,-equire special protection, the Act may be suitably amended to cover their cases or else the number of such illegal squatters may increase from time to time. W.P.(C) 4743/2011r 5254/2011 & connected matters

¶29There has been no serious objection to the Scheme submitted by NDMC which is a comprehensive scheme. Certain directions have, however, been sought for fmm this Court. We appmve the Scheme submitted by 1\JDMC.

¶30It is submitted befol-e us that the Schemes which have been approved by this Court must be subject to any Act 01-rules that may be fl-amed in consonance with the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors. It goes .without saying that we have appmved the Schemes as fl-amed by MCD 'and NDMC. If the legislature intervenes and frames another scheme or regulations govei-ning such Schemes, that will certainly supersede the Schemes prepared by MCD and NDMC. It is well settled that any administrative adion is always subject to law that may be framed by the competent legislature.

¶35Subject to the aforesaid modifications/changes in the Schemes submitted by MCD and NDMC, the same are approved. The said authorities shall now take appropriate steps to implement the Scheme forthwith. In case of any difficulty faced by them in implementing the schemes, they shall have the liberty to apply to this CoUI-t."

¶8Lastly, in the recent judgment in the case of Gainda Ram (suQ[g_}, leamed counsel for the respondent/NOMe specifically relied upon pal-as 30, 32, 50 to 66 to state that the Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that a stl-uctured regulation and legislation is urgently 1-equired to contml and regulate the fundamental right of hawking. She also pointed out that the thl-ee tier disputes redressal mechanism set out in the affidavit filed by the then Chairperson of the NDMC was taken note of by the Supl-eme Cou1-t in para 72 of the aforesaid judgment and ill para 73, it was then observed as below> W.P.(C) 4743/2011, !5254/2011 & connected matters "73. In paragraph 12 of the· affidavit it has. been stated that there shall be an Appellate Authority which shall attend to the redressal of grievances of squattel-s, hawkers, traders, residents or any other person by hearing appeals against the decision of the Vending Committee (Main). Parag!-aph 12 of that affidavit is set out below:- There shall be an Appellate Authority. On the forwarding of . petitions received by the Chairperson, this Authority shall attend to redressal of grievances of squatters, hawke,-s, traders, residents or any other pel-son. The Authority shall also hear appeals against the decision of Vending Committee (Main). Decisions of this Authority unless challenged before a Highe!- Forum or in any Competent Court, shall be final. This Authority shall be initially headed by a person appointed by the Chairperson having at least 10 yea,-s legal or judicial background. There can be more than one member in this Autho!-ity."

¶9After making the aforesaid observations, in paras 74 to 76 of the judgment, the Supreme Court went on to observe as below:- "7 4. In the said affidavit, which was affirmed before this Court on 24th August, 2010 it has been stated that NDMC shall comply with the orde!-s which would be passed by the adjudicatory mechanism contemplated in the scheme and which has been approved by this Court for the NDMC area, unless such orders are made subject matter of challenge before a higher forum or in any other competent Court.

¶75In view of such schemes, the hawkers, squatte,-s and vendors must abide by the Dispute Redl-essal scheme mentioned above. T·here should not be any direct approach to this Court by way of fresh petition or lAs, bypassing the Dispute Redressal Mechanism provided in the scheme. W.P.{C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters

¶76However, before 30th June, 2011, the appropriate Government is to enact a law on the basis of the Bill mentioned above c:ir on the basis of any amendment thel-eof so that the hawkers may pi-ecisely know the contours of their rights."

¶10It was thus sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent/NDMC that there can be no vacuum as far as ,-egulation of trade of street hawkers/vendors in the NDMC jurisdiction is concerned and the failure on the part of the legislature to abide by the timeline set out by the Supreme Court in the case of _Gainda Ram (suQra}, by putting in place a statute on or before 30.06.2011, cannot be inte,-preted by the petitioners/vendors to mean that they can continue their u-acle unhindered at any place of their choice in the NDMC jurisdiction, in an umegulated manner and without any obstruction or objection from the 1\1 D JVIC. :U. Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC particularly ,-eferrecl to paras 74 and 75 of the aforesaid judgment to state that the dispute redressal scheme, noticed by the Supreme Court in pal-a 75 was the one that was legally functioning in NDMC jUI-isdiction and which was taken note of by the Court in the preceding para 74. In othe1-words, she stated that the scheme as set out in the affidavit dated 24.08.2010, filed by the then Chairperson of NDMC before the Supreme Court in Gaind_g__ Ram's_ ~gse .L~!.JPX9}, was the one which was finally approved by the Supreme Court. She further submitted that assuming, without admitting, that the W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters ~ -':, dispute ,-edressal scheme set out by the NDMC had lapsed on 30.6.2011, as claimed by the petitioners, then the NDMC Act provides an adequate fallback to ensure orderly management of vendo,-s in the area. Specific reference was made in this regard to the provisions contained in Sections 221, 224, 225 and 226 of the said Act.

¶12It was fu1~the1-argued by the counsel for the respondent/1\JDMC that the application filed by the NDMC befo,-e the Supreme Court in July 2011 praying inter alia for extension of time to regulate hawkersjsquatte,-s in the NDMC area, as per the scheme mentioned in the judgment in Gainda R9Jll's case (suprat till the enactment of a law by the legislature in that regard, had not yet been finally disposed of by the Supreme Court at the time of passing of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011 and similarly, the other application filed by one of the hawkers/vendors praying inter alia for restraining the respondent/NDMC from granting Tehbazari ,-ights to the winners of the lucky draw of lots for allotment, which was to be held on

12.05.2011 or any elate thereafter, was also pending consideration before the Supreme Court. Hence, no finality could be attached to the order dated 15.7.2011 which can only be considei-ecl an interim measure· till the final disposal of the aforesaid applications 01-the enactment of a legislation.

¶13On merits, learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC ,-efen-ecl to the affidavit dated 01.08.2011 filed by the Director (Enfo1-cement), NDMC, W.P.(C} 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters IP'age 10 of 28 wherein it was stated that pursuant to the public notice issued by the NDIVJC inviting applications under the NOMC Urban Street Vending Scheme in the year 2007, the respondent/ND!VIC had ,-eceived 4367 applications. The documents required by the applicants fol-1-egistration under the Scheme included a proof of age, documentary proof/affidavit for the purpose of annual income, proof of resideilce, pmof in suppo1·t of special categories like handicapped, Kashmiri migrants etc. and proof of squatting in the NDMC area, if any. In para 4 of the aforesaid affidavit, the following criteria approved/adopted by the Vending Committee to shortlist the eligible applicants is set out:-"4. That the criteria approved/adopted by the Vending Committee to shortlist the eligible applicants is as under:-

(i) The applicants should be resident of Delhi with his name ,-egistered in electoral rolls as per abstract of photo E-Roll or ERO certificate.

(ii) The applicant should be a major, viz. with over 18 years of age as pel-valid birth certificate or age certificate or school certificate etc.

(iii) The applicant should be a needy as per income 1-ecords of DC (Revenue) or as vulnerability recoi-cls of Government of NCT of Delhi (Samajik Suvidha Sang am: vulnerable and most vulnerable category).

(iv) The applicant should be registel-ed as pel-NDMC Street Vendors Scheme. The policy verification of the applicant should be available.

(v) The applicant or his dependent family member should not be employed or should not have any other tehbazari/vending or any other business premises in Delhi as per record verification of NDMC/MCD. W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters -7,

(vi) Preference will be given to applicants who are physically handicapped or widows or senior citizens above years or-Kashmiri migrants or SC/ST (necessary certificate to be submitted and r-elaxation may be given in the above cr-iteria)." . 14. As per the respondent/NDMC, the category-wise list of eligible shortlisted applicants in terms of the aforesaid cr-iteria totalled to 3878 applicants. The affidavit dated

01.08.2011 states that the respondent/NDI'v'IC has identified 183 new spaces, in acldition to the 203 remaining spaces identified by the Thareja Committee i11 the ND!VIC area, which were available for allotment, thus taking the total number of available spaces to 386. It was further stated that due to factor-s like de-listing of the Parliament Street on security grounds, construction of flyovers and 1\/letro Stations at various locations in the NDI'v'IC jur-isdiction, the number of authorized tehbazari squatters has changed from 348 to ( 404 in number. The number of applicants, who the responclent/NDMC claims, are vending unauthor-isedly at Connaught Place, Sarojini Nagar, Parlrament Street and Janpath areas and in whose favour, status quo orders are operating, is stated to be 323 in number. The affidavit asserts that simply because the names of the petitioners, who are register-eel with the 1\J Dl'v'IC, figure in the eligibility list drawn by the responclent/N DMC, cannot be treated as proof of their-regularly vending in the NDMC area and nor does it confer on them any enforceable vested r-ight to ensure a vending space for them in the 1\JDMC area, which is directly dependent on PII!.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters l\ the number of spaces available. Thus, it was contended that neithe1· the possession of any numbe1· of challans, nor the absence thereof can make a difference, for the reason that challans cannot fo1·m the basis fo1· the petitioners to claim any vested legal right to squat at a given space.

¶15Counsel for the respondent/NDMC asserted that the present petitions are not maintainable inasmuch as the petitione1·s have an equally efficacious alternate remedy of approaching the appellate authority constituted by the Chairperson; NDMC, for redressal of thei1· grievances and failu1·e on thei1· part to have approached the Vending Committee is not on account of the fact that the said Committee including the appellate authority is not functioning, but because they have found it more convenient to bypass the aforesaid forum and approach this CoL11·t directly, which is not permissible. She stated that extensive measures have been taken by the responde~t/NDMC to constitute the adjudicatory \, mechanism by way of a three tier system in the following manner:-

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

¶2Vending Sub-Committee (Heath and Hygiene) and 3 _ Vending Sub-Committee (Enforcement).

¶16She stated that the creation of the aforesaid three Vending Sub-Committees, Vending Committee (Main), as also of the appellate authoJ·ity which was constituted to redress the grievances of the squatters, hawkers, traders, residents or any other person against the decision of W.P.(C) 4743/2011r 5254/2011 & connected matters -··,, the Vending Committee (Main), was placed before the Supreme Court for-consideration and the said three tier adjudicator-y mechanism was duly approved in the judgment of Gainda Ram (supra).

¶17Per-contra, learned counsels for-the petitioners/vendor-s, who appeared on different dates, vehemently opposed the aforesaid stand taken by the r-espondent/NDMC and asserted that the scheme floated by the respondent/NOMe for regulating vending activities in its jurisdiction had lapsed on 30.06.2011 iil the absence of the enactment of a legislation as per directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Gainda Ram (supra) and as on date, there is no scheme in existence. It was canvassed that the implication of the aforesaid order-of status quo passed by the Supr-eme Court on 15.07.2011 can only mean that irrespective of the fact whether the squatting is legal or illegal, the same be permitted to continue on an 'as is where is' basis, and such stat·us quo is to be maintained by all. the parties till a law is framed by the legislatur-e.

¶18~!Jr.

8.8. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate appearing for-the petitioners/vendors submitted that in the case of Gainda Ram (supra1. the Supr-eme Court had dir-ected that the appropriate government must enact a law on or befor-e 30.06.2011 so that the hawker-s may precisely know the contours of their rights, hence the dispute r-edressal mechanism p~ovided for in the scheme mentioned in the aforesaid judgment could operate only upto 30.06.2011 and thereafter, the said scheme would W.P.(C) 4743/2011r S254/2011 & connected matters (~' I (, automatically stand lapsed. He stated that no other interpretation can be given to the order dated 15.07.2011, directing maintenance of status quo, in view of the qualifying words, "as it is obtaining today". He argued that if the scheme was continuing to operate, as claimed by the leal-ned counsel for the respondent/NDMC, then there was no good ,-eason for the respondent/NOMe to have refrained fmm holding a draw of lots, which was slated fo1-the same day, i.e., 15.07.2011, and that fact of th.e matter is that even the respondenyNDMC had undel-stood the status quo ordel-to mean that there is no scheme in place after 30.6.2011, for the ,-eason that in para 68 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Gaincla Ram (suQral, all the writ petitions and the interim applications filed before the Supreme Court were disposed of with clear and specific directions that the problem of hawking and street vending could be ,-egulatecl by the schemes framed by the NDMC and MCD only upto 30.06.2011 and not thereafter. It was asse1i:ed on behalf of the petitionersjvenclo,-s that as on date, the directions of the Supreme Court that status quo is to be maintained by the parties can only be given one illterpretation, which is that till a law is ultimately enacted by the Parliament, irrespective of thei1-legal status, all the petitioners/vendors would be penllittecl to continue squatting/hawking at the sites that have been occupied by them.

¶19Insofar as the composition of the dispute redressal mechanism is concerned, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that contrary to the understanding of the respondent/NDMC, the scheme W.P .. {C} 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters Page 1.'5 of 28 reproduced at paras 72 and 73 in the judgment in the case of Gainda Ran} _(~~[[y_a}, was not the one which was actually recognized by the Supreme Court, and rather it is the dispute redressal scheme mentioned in pal-a 75 of the aforesaid judgment i.e., a scheme for urban stl-eet vendol-s foi-NDIVJC area as formulated in the year 2006, which was ultimately appmved by the Supreme Court on 17.05.2007, in the case of _Suclhir M_gclar1 (~LJPfg}, which is the scheme which finds mention specifically in the following para 74 and is the one approved by the Supl-eme Court. It was contended that even othel-wise, the National Capital Ten-itory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 (hereinafter refen-ed to as 'Speda~ PnJvisiolllls Acit') comes to the rescue of the petitioners for the reason that sub-clause (2) of Section :3 of the Special Pmvisions Act mandates maintenance of statu,s quo as on 01.01.2006, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, in respect of encmachrnent or unauthorized development. Thus, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners/vendors that they were entitled to grant of interim protection till the enactment of a legislation to regulate hawking/vending activities in urban streets in Delhi on the basis of the National Policy on Urban Stl-eet Vendors, 2009 framed on 17.06.2009 and the Special Provisions Act.

¶20With reference to tile Special Pmvisions Act, leamed Senior Advocate for the petitioners stated that the phrase, "unauthorized development" used in the definition clause has to be seen in the same context as the one in Wilich the phrase "encmachment" ilas been defined, W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters - ~ I ,J wherein it is mentioned that putting up of temporary, semi-temporar-y or· permanent structure for residential use or commer-cial use or-any other use, and the placement of goods on the pavements by the petitioners is liable to be ter-med as unauthorized use for maintaining status quo under the Special Provisions Act. Much emphasis was laid on the averments made by the respondent/NOMe in its interim application filed befor-e the S.upreme Court in Gainda Ram S_..(:as~Jsupra)_ in July 2011, to submit that the respondent/N DMC itself had stated in the said application that the scheme had lapsed and therefore, the only interpretation that can be given to the status quo order passed by the Supreme Cour-t on

15.07.2011 can be that no scheme would exist after-30.06.2011 and thus, the benefit of the Special Provisions Act ought to be extended to the petitioners. He submitted that the phrase 'street vendors' has been clearly defined under the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009. Reliance was placed in the case of Patri Vyapar Mandai Delhi (Reg_QJ vs. JVICQ Town Hall & Ors. repor-ted as (2.009) 12. sec 475 and the provrsrons of the Special Provisions Act to submit that even the Supreme Court had recognized the fact that the Special Provisions Act is the only Central law governing the field and it would have primacy over other Statutes and administrative orders. It is thus stated that the provisions . of the NDMC Act cannot be invoked by the responclent/NDMC as the said Act is not in consonance With Article 96 of the Constitution of India and furthermor-e, the Special Provisions Act being valid till the end of W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 s, connected maUers December 2011, no orde1-s in derogation of the provisions of the said Act can be passed.

¶21Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate appearing for some of 1the petitioners/vendors sought to embellish the submissions of IV!r.Sawhney, SI-.Advocate and relied on the orders passed in W.P.(C) 1449l/201l entitled f1Qhd. Ismail vs. NDM_c__~_Ors. to urge that the "Appellate Authority" constituted under the dispute redressal mechanism fo1-the 1\llJIVIC area, has not been functioning, which fact he stated is bome out from a perusal of the orde,- dated 08.03.2011 passed in the afol-esaid' case, wherein the Court took notice of the claim of the petitione,-;venclor therein to the effect that inspite of orders passed by the Appellate Authority allowing squatting at a particular site, till a final determination by the \/ending Committee as to his eligibility, the respondent/NOMe and the police were disturbing his activities. In the afo,-esaid order, the statement of the counsel for the respondent/NDMC was recorded to the effect that the appellate authority, whose order was being relied upon by the petitioner therein, was constituted initially for the MCD a1·eas and later started functioning for the NDIVIC areas as well for the reason that at that time, there was no separate appellate authority for the NDIVIC al-eas, but subsequently, in accordance with the scheme approved by the Sup11eme Court, the Chairperson, NDIVJC had constituted a separate appellate authority for ·the NDMC areas. Therefore, the · appellate authority appointed eal-lier had ceased to have jurisdiction qua the NDJVIC al-eas. It ~/IUP'.(C} 4.743/2011r 5254/2011 & connected matters was thus contended on behalf of the petitioners/vendors that the aforesaid order-clearly indicates that the appellate authority in the 1\JDIVJC areas is not functioning.

¶22Reliance was also placed on the minutes of the meeting of the Vending Committee dated 11.03.2010, to claim that if the fact of whether ther-e was actual squatting/vending was verified by the Committee and if the names of the petitioners/vendors figured in the eligibility list prepared by the respondent/1\JDIVIC for holding the draw of lots, then it did not lie in the mouth of the r-espondentji\IDMC to claim that the petitioner-s, who had been verified and found to be eligible, were not entitled to squat at various sites in the 1\JDMC arec; after 30.06.2011.

¶23In rebuttal, counsel for the r-espondent/1\JDIVIC disputed the contentions of the petitioners/vendors and while r-eiter-ating her ear-lier-submissions, asserted that the petitioners did r1ot have any legally enforceable right, created on the basis of the eligibility list dr-awn by 1\JDMC, for claiming grant of interim or-ders in their favour. She again referred to paras 68, 69, 7 5, 76 and 78 of the judgment in the case of Gai__r}_gg__Ram J..gj_Q..@}, to emphasize that when the aforesaid par-as ar-e read collectively, it is clear that the petitioner-s cannot claim an entitlement to any interim order-s as sought by. them in the present proceedings. She further stated that even otherwise, the Special Pr-ovisions Act relied upon by the petitioners has duly r-ecognized the W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters \ schemes prepared by the local authorities in the National Capital TerTitory of Delhi for-regulation of urban street vendors. To substantiate the said submission, she drew the attention of this Court to the preamble of the aforesaid Act, which mentions the fact that all the schemes prepared by the local authorities in the National Capital Terr-itory of Delhi, for regulation of urban street vendors in accordance with the National Policy '-- on Urban Street Vendors,· 2009 and the Master Plan for Delhi 2021, have been implemented and further that more time is required for proper implementation of the schemes regarding hawkers and urban street vendor-s.

¶24A specific reference was made by the learned counsel for the respondent/NDJVIC to Section 2(1)(c) of the SpeCial Provisions Act, which ' defines the phrase "encroachment" to claim that it does not cover the petitioners herein, who are squatter-s. Further reference was made to the provision of Section 3 of the Special Provisions Act, which contains a non obstante clause, to state that status quo with regar-d to the encroachment or unauthorized development as on 01.01.2006, mentioned in the said pr-ovision, was in the context of the definition of the phrases "encroachment" and "unauthorized development" set out in the definition clause at Sections 2(1)(c) and 2(1)(i) respectively of the Special Provisions Act and thus, the petitioners/vendors did not qualify under the aforesaid enactment for claiming protection as none of the ingredients set out in the pr-ovisions of the afor-esaid enactment are found to e)(ist in their W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters case. It was submitted that the Special Provisions Act, which came into effect in the year 2007 and has been e)(tended from time to time ancl lastly, till December 2011, does not give permission to persons to re-start any activity once they have been removed by the civic authority ancl similar-ly 1 the Scheme of 2009 does not entitle the registr-ants to squat unless they have been allotted a specific site. In support of the afor-esaid submission, reliance was place Oil the judgment in the case of aCD ~ _0_t=:twam_ l<q_ur: reported as (1989)

¶11sec Hll1. For~ the pur-pose of interpreting the meaning of the phrase, "structure", reference was made to the judgment of the Supr-eme Cour-t in the case of MuniciQQl Corpor-ation of Greater Bombay & Ors. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported as AIIR 1991 SC 686. For the pur-pose of understanding the expr-ession, 'status quo' 1 r-eference was made to the judgment in the case of !VIessrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. State of Bihar & Ors. r-epot-ted as 1987 (SQJipp) sec 394 to submit that in ordinar-y legal connotation, the tenT' 'status quo' implies the existing state of things at any given point of time.

¶25As for-the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, counsel for the respondent/NDMC stated that both, the 2004 policy and the 2009 policy 1 find mention in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gainda Ram (supra) and it was only after taking into consideration the said policies, did the Court directed the institutionalization of urban str-eet vending through legislation. It was fur-ther stated that at the time of W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters t delivering the judgment dated :S.10.2010, the Supreme Court took notice of the I\ICT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2009, which was valid upto 30.12.2010 r apart from noticing the JVlodel Street Vendor-s (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street \/ending) Bill, 2009 introduced by the Government of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation. She stated that nothing new is now being submiltecl by the petitioners/vendors herein, for the present petitions to be entertained for any purpose whatsoever and all the grievances r-aised by tile petitioners can easily be aclclressecl before the \/ending Committee/appellate authority under the scheme relating to ur-ban street vending in the I\IDMC area, which fora continue to remain functional, even after-30.6.2011.

¶26This Court has heard these matters at length since 17.8.2011, on different elates. Various counsels for the petitioners/vendor-s and the Standing Counsel for the respondent/NDMC had addressed the Cour-t. Their-respective arguments have been taken note of. Both sides have made strenuous efforts to e)(plain what the status quo order elated

15.7.2011 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gainda R,_g_rn(;;lJQra) implies. The leitmotif of the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners/vendors is that the status quo order-read with the qualifying :wor-ds, "as it is obtaining today", suffi><ed to the order, can only be read to imply that as on elate, i.e., 15.7.2011, there was no scheme oper-ational in the I\IDMC areas to regulate vending activities and till a law W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected mati·ers Page 2.2 of .28 is ultimately enacted by the 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 responclent/NDMC in collusion with the police authorities, is threatening to illegally remove the petitioners/vendors from different sites, which is detrimental, aclve1·se, harassing and belligerent to those, who have been found eligible by the ~ respondent/N QjVIC for being allottee! specific tehbazari spaces within the NDIVJC jurisdiction, but are being threatened clue to lack of ful-ther action in this regard which is pending at the end of the responclent/NDMC. The second limb of submissions macle by the learned counsels For the t•' petitioners/vendors was that the Special Provisions Act would aclditionally 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.

¶27On the other hand, the main thrust of the argumellts addressed by the counsel for ·the respondent/NOMe was that as the legislatL!I-e has failed to enact all appropriate legislation in terms of the decision of the Supreme Cou1~t in the case of G9lng_g_ _ _Bam(supra}, the subsequent orde1-clatecl 15.7.2011 directing par·ties to maintain the status quo as it is obtaining on the said elate can only imply that the state of affai1·s as e)(isting on date al-e not to be disturbed, until the rights of the parties can be finally determined through legislation. It was submitted that while W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matt-ers passing the status quo order on 15.07.2011, the Supr-eme Court was conscious of the fact that the Parliament had yet to enact a comprehensive legislation to regulate urban street vending and in such circumstances, it goes without saying that it was the intent of the Court that the entire dispute redressal mechanism as r-ecognized in the case of ~-c:!iJJ9<2_EallJ.(SUQI.<2-l would continue to remain in operation, so as to regulate the urban street vending in the NDMC area, till the legislation in that regard is enacted. Further-, it was stressed that the Special Pmvisions Act did not provide any pmtective umbrella· to the petitioners, whose squatting activities neither fell under the definition of "encmachment", nor under "unauthorized development". It was Fur-ther asserted that· even other-wise pending an appmpr-iate legislation, the NDMC Act was available as a fall back option and the relevant provisions in the said enactment would continue to regulate street vending activity in the NDIVIC area and the petitioners/vendors could not claim a vested r-ight to squat at any site of their own.

¶28From the above, it is apparent that arguments and counter-arguments have been raised by both sides on their-respective versions of the meaning and the effect of the s~atus quo order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the Supreme Court. It is also very apparent, that the meaning sought to be attributed by both sides as to the implication of tile said status quo order, is diametrically opposed to each other. 1\lot only this, both sides are at a tangent on the factum of the pendency or-otherwise of W.P.(C} 4743/2011r 5254/2011 & connected matters the. interim applications filed before the Supreme CoUI-t by both, the applicants/vendors and the respondent/NOMe, for clarifications, on which the afol-esaid order came to be passed as it is the stand of the 1-espondent/NDMC that the aforesaid applications were not disposed of while passing the order dated 15.7.2011. The pal-ties are poles apart on the question of impol-t of the status quo ol-del-, and the effect of the obsel-vations made by the Supreme Court in· the case of Gaincla R_arQ_(2_!JQra) as regards the approval of NDMC scheme. They a1-e also at loggerheads on the composition of the adjudicatory mechanism. in the 1\IDIVJC jurisdiction and the manner of its functioning, as also the identity of the scheme which is validly operating in the NDMC areas fol-regulating Ul-ban street vending, which had all been subject matte1-of consideration before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The other issues agitated by the parties, starting from the interpretation of the various , observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, -(0 the formulation of the scheme as approved by the Supreme Colll-t in the case of Sudhir 1\/ladan (supra_l, to the composition of the disputes redressal mechanism and its validity as also the meaning of the status quo ordel-, are all in a turmoil as both the parties have stoutly defended their respective stands which are completely at variance with each other. The only common ground shared by the parties is the factum of passing of the recent judgment dated 08.10.2010 in the case of Gaincla J:\.g_m(~t,JQ~i-1) and the subsequent status quo order dated 15.7.2011 passed Vlf.P.(C) 47'43/201:1r 5254/2011 & connected matters Page 25 of28 ......, by the Supreme Court.

¶29The fountainhead of the dispute in the p!-esent cases thel-efore remains the status quo order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the Supl-eme Court. The issue which is sought to be agitated befo,-e this Cou,-t is that having ,-egard to the status quo order, whether a stay order ought to be granted by this Court in favour of the petitioners/vendors as prayed fo,- by ther:n, irrespective of their legal status, thus forbidding the respondent/NDIVJC from thl-eatening and/or ,-emoving them from the different sites occupied by them in the NDMC areas. In other words, this Court is being called upon to e)(amine the meaning, scope and effect of the status quo order dated .15.07.2011. On the question of how to ascertain the implication of a status quo order passed by a court, in the case of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that the e)(pression, 'status quo' is undoubtedly a teml of ambiguity and at times, gives rise to doubt and difficulty and in case any party has. any doubt on the meaning and the effect of the status quo ... : .. -~·"· ,. ordel-, the proper course for such a party would be to approach the Cou,-t that had passed the status qup order, to se~k,clarifications . . ':~

¶30In the case at hand, while seekin~ to ride the wave of the afol-esaid status quo order, the parties have chosen to overlook one impol-tant. factor, which is that a status quo orde1-opel-ates on both sides. The Supl-eme Court has passed orders requiring both sides to maintain status .w.P.(C} 4743/20:11, 5254/2011 & connected matters .) ll quo. Once such an order of the Sup,-eme Court is Oil ,-ecoi-d, the same not only binds all the parties to the adjudication, and all the pal-ties, civil or judicial who are required to act in accordance with the said o!-del-s, but it equally binds the High Court from interfering with such an ol-cler, as the said order llas been passed in litigations before the highest Court of the land .

¶31The orders of the Supreme Court are on recol-d. The status quo ol-der is a clear signal to the High Court as well, to avoid grantillg any order, including an interim order, when the Supl-eme Court has cli!-ected for status quo to be maintained. In such circumstances, if this Coul-t was to gJ-ant a stay order in favcur of the petitioners/vendors aiTayecl before it, it would be tantamount to negating the ol-ders of the Supreme Court, which require the parties to maintain status quo pending enactment of appropriate legislation. If ~ither of the parties were unclear about the inteq)retation of the status quo order, it was for them to have applied to the Supreme Court for clarifications thereof. Additionally, the reliance . placed by the petitioners/vendors on the Special Provisions Act seeking iriterim legal sanctity to the placement of goods by them on the pavements, by terming it as encroachmentjunauthol-ized use, as recognized under the said Act and their\contention that the Supreme Court had recognized the fact that the Special Provisions Act is the only Central lavv having primacy ove1-other Statutes, ar·e also matte1-s tllat the JI!I!.P.(C) 4743/201.J.r 5254/2011 & connected matters -·-,l '--· ---- petitioners/vendol-s ought to have placed before the Supl-eme Cou,-t while seeking clarifications of the status quo order. It would thel-efore be advisable for the petitioners/vendors as also the respondent/1\JDMC to approach the Supreme Court and make their submissions there as regards their grievances. However, as both parties insisted that thei1-arguments be taken note of and their submissions be placed on record, some pains have been taken to do the needful.

¶32In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Cou,-t is of the opinion that it will not be appropriate for it to grant stay orders in the face of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Sup,-eme Colll-t. It is reiterated that any such order shall be an anti-thesis to the orders of the Sup!-eme Court, which must be respected both, in letter and spil-il. In such circunlstances, the present petitions are disposed of by declining grant of any interim orders to the petitioners. However, liberty is gl-anted to both the parties to apply to the Supreme Court for a clarification of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011 passed in the case of Gainda Ram (~"'IQf.flJ~-The parties are left to bear their own costs. ~)__s~ c~ -'"~:::____ p"-' 0 CT 0 E Rc:5t L\ , 2 0 11 rkb W.P.(C) 4743/2011r 5254/2011 & connected mati:ers (HIMA 9(0HIU) JUDGE ·-:--~~--~-;-------:;-~-----:;-c-··;-~~-.--~~:-:-------------~c:.-:--;::;:·----ccc~-~c----·•~~-~-----·--~---------------