Nepal Singh v. Ndmc and Ors

order dated 15.07.201.1., which is the bone of contention and is reproduced hereinbelow "Heard learned counsel Por tlie applicaril.s and ijeiused the record. ' . - , •^l/'-43/201Xr B'254/2011 & coiuiecl.erf mailers Page 3 of2H -.)1 Since JudgMient oP this Court -hasi so . not jeen implemented, inasmuch as appropriate legislation lias not'been enacted by the competent legislature, we direct the parties to maintain the stgtus quo as it is obtaining today." It was submission oP' the learned counsel^ Poi tin.. espondeht/PsipMCthat the aPoresaid order issued by the Su|..)iem0(..ouil., calling upori, the parties to maintain staCus quo as Obtaining on

5.07.2011,.tanonly be interpretedto mean that the extensivedii e'..tioii.,-.. issued e'aiHier, on 08.10.2.010,in the case oP GMLCjcLJi?Jll-.(su|Jrareported as (2010) |0 see 715 shall continue to remain in operation, int.iiiilmg^ ;he adjudic^tory nnechanism provided Por by ti'ie IMI3MC in ti'ie scl.ieme Dresented t>y it bePore.-the Supreme Court a,nd approved in ttie said judgment, t;UI the appropriate government enacts a•law for regulating urban street hawRers and street vendors. It was stated tliat. sim|.ily. because the-legislature has not'enacted a law in this regard on or hefoie

30.06.201:1.,. as. directed in the aPbresaid-.judgiTient, it cannot P)e contended by tPie petitioners/vendors that there exists a vacuum nii(.l the said vacuum can no longer be Pilled up by continuing to regulate vending activities in the i\iDMC jurisdiction in tPie manner as set oul. in the aPoresaid judgment. , .

¶4To give a brieP backgi'ound oP the dispute, learned counsel Por the respdndent/MDMC w.alked this Court through sorne prorninent decisions oP the Supreme Court rendered Pi'om tinie to tiirie; which relate to privemoiil. mr.P\(CJ 47-'i3/201J., S:i5A/2011 }h.<sonnGCl:<-d niatCeis I'^nge. 4-t.tr 2H qLiatters/l'iawkers,'starting rron"i tlie decision iri'the case oI'.bu.dn biiiyl' S: IMDI^^IC 8^ Ors. reported as (.1998) 2 SCC 727, tlVe inteiiivv order dnteri { •

3.03.2006 -passed by the .Supreme Court "in' W,.P..(C) iG'S)?:)'/JI.'PB,? I'ltitied Sudhir l^ladan &s Oi's. vs. MCD. 'ttie Pinal judgment in the i;;n.se uP udhir l^ladari (supra) repoited as (2009) 17 SCC 597 aiu:l .lastly, judgment dated 08.10.2-010 passed in the case qr'GajjiddjyiT).,(supj^^^^^^^ Learned counsei for ttie respondent/NDIMC, vehemently opppsec.l ttje prayer oP tlie petitionei's/veridoi's Por grant oP interim ordei'S resljairiing U'le respondent/MDl^lC from removing theiri Prom the sites occupied liy dnem till the enactment oP an appropriate legislation, in terrns ul the lirections issued by tlie Supreme •Court in the-case oP Ciciilida Jlaii]

5.Upra). She particularly rePerred to the observations made Ijy the Supreme: Court in paras 40 and ---11. oP the judgipent in tPie Cc'rse oP Sqdciji Singh .(supra.)., whict) dealt witti tlie immediate, eviction oP u'nauthrirized i • • squatters/liawkers and laid emphasis on tlie Pact that in tPie said (":ase, ttie upreme Court had directed removr3l oP una,utl,iorized sqliatters/hawkers without awaiting Pinal allotment oF sites to be allotted to eligible clninirint.'; at the places recommended by tlie Thareja Coni'mittee or suggestetl by the'lMDMC. ' - ' .' .

¶6Again, in' the interim order dated 0-3.03.2006 passed in Sudtiir; Madan's case (supi'a), the i'ollowing obseivaLion mcn.le by the .Su|.)renie Couit' was highlighted by the counsel for the responderit/MDMC;- (CJ 4/43/2011, 5254/2011 a connecCed maiters ' Fcrye uf 2't •"While ' w.e undertake this ex'Ircise; we direct ttie Authorities to see to it that those persons, who. are carrying on hawicing activities or who are sc|ual;ting oii public land without any authority, even in accordance with the present day scheme irr force., are removed forthwith. This includes unautl'ioiized hawking, squatting on'public streets, footpaths and public porks, including playground. We direct tlie Dellii Administration to taice steps immediately in collaboration with MLD nnd NDMC with necessary assistance from Deltii Police to clear roads,, streets, footpaths, parks .etc. by unauthorized occupants/sc|uatters/tiawkei"5." i. A\s to the judgment, dated

17.05.2007 rendered in tlie case ol: udhir Madan ("supra),, much emphasis'was 1ai.d by ' th.e counsel for ttie espondent/NOMC on paras 28 to 30 and 35, wliict) arc ieprodwcei;l lereinbelow for ready rePerence;- "28. The. Mew Delhi l^lunicipal Con'imittee has also submitted its Scheme. We tiave considered the Sclieme submitted before us. The area which Falls under' NDMl, does not create problems such" as'those in tl'ie-areas, under MCD. .However, "in the said Scheme reterence has been made to pei'sons who. do hot have ,pern iission under Section 225 or licence under Section 330 oT the NDMC Act, 1994 but Who are unauthorisedly continuing-to carry on business as hawkers/sti'eet vendors. Ihey have been described as tliose who Eire "tolerated" in the ..NDMIC area. We fair to understand Why any pei'son who violates the law should,be tolerated; Either they stiould be compelled tp obey .ti'ie law or the,law may be sLiitably an-iended, if it is found to create undue tiardship.. 'I he problems need to be addressed by the legislature or the' rulemakin'g authority. We, therefore, observe tlvat i.P'it is felt that the persons wtio fall in this category leqi.iiie-special protection; ttre /Act may be suitably amended to cover their cases or else ,the number of such illegal squatters n'lay increase fi'om time to time. W.P.(C) 4743/2011,, 5254/2011 & connected msllers Page 6 of 20-. 29-Th.ere has been no serious objectioi'i. l:o liiia bcl'ieine submitted by IMDI^IC which is a comjDrehensive scheiiie. Certain directions have, Inowever, beei'i sougl'it Por fiorn [this Court. We approve Sciierne submitted by 'IMDI^C. ' . • •

¶30It is submitted before us that l:he Schemes wliicli have been approved by tl'iis Court must be sul:.)iecl; to any Act oi" rules that may be fi'amed ii'i consonance wil.h National Policy on Urban Street Vendors. It goes .without saying that we have approved the Sctiemcs as Prarned by MCD and NDi'-IC.. IP the legislature intervenes and' framies another scheme or regulations go.verniiiy such Schemes, that will certaiijily supersede tPie Schemes prepared by I^CD and IMDlflC. It is well settled that any administrative action is always subject to,law !• that may be .framed by the competent legislaturp.

¶35Subject to the aPoresaid modiPications/ctianges in the Schemes submitted -by I^ICD ai:id' NDMC, tlie sairie are approved. The said authorities si'iall now take appropriate-steps to in-iplement the Scheme Porthwitli. In case of-any diPPiculty Paced by tlieiri in im|:)lernenting the schemes-, they shall tiave the liberty to apply to, this Court." 8-Lastly, in the recent judgment in the cai^e, oP Gajnda JiaiJl,.isuprq) learned counsel Poi" the respondent/MDMC speciPicolly relied U|:)on paras 30, 32, 50 to 66-to state that the Supreme Court was conscious uP the; Pact that a structured regulation and legislation is urgently I'equlicd l.t) control and regulate the fundamental right oP hav/vlcing. Slie als(.i pointed out that tl'ie three tier disputes redressal mecl'iani-sni set oi.it in I.he aPPidavit Piled by the then Chairperson oP-tlie MPMC was taken iu.)to oP by' • • V • the Supreme Court in para 72 oPthe aPoresaid judgment and irj para 73, il; was then obsei'ved as below' W.P.(C) •4743/201X, 52S'^/201.t ffi conn^.cXed m3Uers Page 7 of 2!.l "73. In paragraph 12 of the" aPHclavitit has beeii 5l;al:e(i that there shall be an Appellate /Authority whicti shall attend to the reclressal oP grieva.nqes oP 5qi".iattei hawkers, traders, residents or any. other person -by hearing appeals against the decision oP the Vending Comn-iittee(Main). Paragraph 12 oP tl'iat aPPidavit is st.!l. out below;- There shall be an Appellate iAuthority. On the •forwarding oP petitions feceived by. .the ChaiiqDerson, this ,/Vuthority/;sl'iall attfenil- . to 'redressal oP grievances oP sqOatters, hawkers, traders, residents or any other person'. Mm Authority' shall also hear appeals against Ihe decision oP Vending CoiTuhittep (Main)- Decisi.oris oP this Authority unless challenged bePoi'e a lligher . . Forum or in any Competent Court, sitall be Pinnl,. Tilis Authority shall be initially headed by a person appointed by the Chairperson having'at least .1U years legal oi" judicial background. There can I'lO more than one n'len-iber in thisVAuthoiity."

¶9APter making the aPoresaid observations,!in paras 74 to '/b oP IJ'ie judgment, the Supreme Couit went on to observe as below-:- "74. .i^n tlije said aPPidavit, wtiicli Wcis' aPPirrned L'jei'ore this Court-on 24^'' August, 2010 it has been slated tl.iat l\lPMC shall comply with orders wl'iich would tie passed by. the adjudicatory'mechanisni contern|:)lated in the scheme and which has been-approved by this Couil Por the IMIDMC area, unless such orders are. n"iade.subject matter oP challenge bePore a higher Porurn or' in ariy • other competent Court.

¶75In vievy oP sucti schemes,' tl'ierhawkers, squalLers and vendors must abide by' the Dispute l^edj'essal schen'ie mentioned above. There-should nol: be. any direct approach to this Court by way oP PresI") petition oi IAVe, bypassing Itie t^ispute i-^edressal Mecl'ianisn) provided in the schierne. Mr.P.(€} ^.743/20:111, 5254/2011 S, connected maU.ers Ffi'ge U tyf 2B

¶76However, before 30^''June, ZOll, the appropriate Government is to enact, a law qn the basis of tlie i3ili .mentioned aijdve, or on the basis of any amendment, ttiereof so that the hawkers may precisely .Iciiow the contours of-tlneir rights."

¶6It was thus sought; to be contended on •behalf - ot tlie •espondent/NlDI'^.^Cthat there can be no' vacuum/as far as r,eguiriti()n nl ade oT street hawlcers/vendors in the IMDi^C jurisdiction is concei-nerl ami :he"failure on the-part-of the legislature to abi.de .by, the timeline set out jy the Supreme Court in the, case of Gainda Pvan'i•(supi"a)., by put.ting in iilace a statute on or .before

30.06.2011, cannot be interpreted by the jetitioners/vendors to ' mean that tliey can •continue their trade, unhindered at aiiy place of their choice in the IMDI^IC juri.stl1cbon,. in a.n unregulated inanner and witliout any obsti'uction or otijection iiom tl.ie NIDMC. • • Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC particularly r'eferr'ed to paras 74 and of ttie aforesaid judgment to state that dispute edre.s-sal scheme, noticed by the Supreme Court in para 7!5 was (.he one that was legally functioning in MDMC 'jurisdiction -and which w.as taken note of by tlie Court in. the preceding para 74. Jn other woi ds, she stated that the scheme as set out in the affidavit;clateb 24.08.2010, filed by tlie en Chairperson of IMDMC before the Supren^ie Court in Gajncla .Kaiji's' case .(supra)., was the one .wliicl'i was finally appi'Oved by the Suprome Court. She furtlier sub.rnitted that assuming, without admitting, that l:he mr.P.fCJ 4y^,rS/.Z011, S2S4/2(ril & car,nec!.ed miners Pago 9 or 2H' Ilispute redressalscheme set out by the NDMC iiacl lapsed on 3C).(^>..!()1.1, 315 clainVed by the' petitioners,then the NDMC Act provides an adequate. alHoack'to ensure orderly rnanagennentoP vendors \n the area., .Sppcilic. •ePerence was made in this regard to the provisions contained in Sectioiis ?.2l,-224, 225 and 225 of the said Act.

¶12It was Purther argued by the counsel Poi" the i-,esporident/NL)MC..that the application Piled by the NDMC bePore the SuprenieCourt in .July 2(.) i l. -jraying inter alia for extension of time to regulate hawkers/squatters in tl'ie NDMC area, a.s per the sclierne mentioned in tlie judgment in Gainda ^am'.s case fsupra), 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 oP passing of the stalius quo order dated 15.07.2011 and similarly, the other application Piled by one oP the hawlcers/vendors praying inler alia foi-restraining the respondent/NDNC from' granting rehbazari rights to the winners of the''-iucky draw, of lots for allotment, wliich was to l:)e held on

12.05.2011'; -or any date there..after; was also pending consideration before the Supreme Court- • Hence, no finality could he attached to the order dated

15.7.2011 v/vhich can only be consi(.lei ed an iriterirri measure till tfie'final .disposal of the af.oresaid application.s oi" tlie enactment of a legislation. . ,

¶13On merits, learned counsel for tine I'espond en t/i\lf)i^lC referred l;o the aPhdavit dated

01.08.2011 Piled'by the Director (Enforcen.ieht), Nl.iMC, W.p:(C) 474.3/ZO.tl, 5254/2011 connected nwlters Page, .id' of 7Jt /herein it was .stated tliat pursuant to the public notice issued l.)y the IMDMC inviting applica'liions under ttie MDMCj Urban Stieet Vending cheme in 'the year 2007, the respondent/NDMC'had received '\M-yi pplications.The documents required by the applicants Tor registration nder the Scheme included a proof of age, docun'iSntaryprool/ariidavil. lor the "purpose of annual income, proof of i-esidence, proof iii siii-'P'-'if special categorieslike handicapped,Kashmiri migrants etc. and proof ui-squatting in the IMDMC area, .if any. In para 4 of ttre aforcsi=iid affidavj.t, ;he fo.llowing criteria approved/adopted by i;he Vending Cornniiltee to :hortli,5t the eligible applicants is set out:-' . ' "4. That the criteria approved/adopted by tl'ie Vending Committee to shortlist tlie eligible applicants is as under;-

(i) The applicants should be resident of Delhi witli I'lis' name registered in electoral rolls'as per abstract of photo E-Roli or ]5R0 certificate. . .(ii) Tl'i.e applicant should be a major, viz. witli over-I M years of age ' as per valid birtfi certificate or age c.erl:ificate or school certificate etc.

(iii) The applicant should be a needy as per iriconie records of'iDC (l^xevenue) or as vulnerability records of Government of NCT of Delhi (Samajil< Suvidha .Sangani: ' , .vulnerable and most vulnerable category).

(iv) The api'jiicant sfiould be registered as per MDMt! Street Vendors Scheme. The policy verification of the. • . applicant should be available. ; , •

(v) The applicant or his dependent fan'iily menil..)er-should not be .employed or si'iould'not tiave any other tehbazari/yending or any other business premises in ' . • Delhi as per record verification of NDMC/MCD. • W.P.(C) 4743/201:1/525^1/2011 a cannscte-.d ma^Ciers. Page. J1 of 2B (\/i) Preference will be, given to applicants who-die physically,handicapped or-,.-widows or senior ciltZ'tins above G,0 years • or Kashmiri, migrants or SC./S I (necessary certiPicate to be submitted and rela,xation rnay be given in the alcove criteria)."

¶4As per the respondent/NDMC, the category-wise list oP .eligible ; • • • shortlisted applicants ,in terms of the aforesaid criteri.a totalled to applicants. The aPfidavit dated-Ol.OS.ZOll states' tl:iat-l.ite -espondent/NDMChas identified 183. new'spaces, in addition to tliH .?().,•.! -ernainingspaces identified by the Thareja Con'imitteein, tlie•Nt)M(.... area, which were available' for allotment, thus takiric], tl'ie tptal ' number o(' availablespaces to 38S., -It was further stated that clue to factors lil':e de-/ listing of the Parliament ,Street on security grounds, constructioi'i oP flyovers and'Metro Stations at various locations in the NDMC jurisdiction, the number of 'authorized .te/-;/jaza/7 squatters fias changed Pi'on't to 404 in number. • The number of applicants, who the respondenl:/NI.)M(.,. claims, are vending unauthorisedly at Connaught Place, Sai:o'jii;ii i\layar, I Parliament Street and Janpath areas and in wfiose favour, 'quo orders are operating, is stated to be'323 in nurnber. The afPidavit assert.s that simply because the names oP the petitioi'iers, wlio are regist&red wiili / ' I ' • NDML, figure in the eligibility list drawn by the respQi'i.denl./NI.'MC;, cannot be treated as proof of their regularly vending in tlie NDMC" area and nor does it confer on tliern any enforceable vested iight to en.';urG a vending space for thern in the NDMC area, whicti is directly dependent on Wr:P.,(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 S, corinecCed matters Frige 12 2U t-ie number of spaces availabie. Thus, it was contended that neitherthe ossession.of any number of challans, nor the absepce thereof can mrii<e difference, for ttie reason tliat challans cannot form the basis for the petitioners to claim any vested legal right to squat at a given s|.,'ace.

¶5Counsel for res|i)ondent/l\iDMC asserted that tfie I'lresent petitions: are not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners have an iqualiy efficacious alternate. remedy of approaching Itie appellate. Uth'ority constituted by the Chairperson,, NDI^C, for redre£:;sal nl IJieii' irievances and failure on ttieii' .pait to have appi'oachecl the 'Vending, "ommittee is not on account of ttie fact tfiat ttie. said Committee including ;he appellate authority is not. functioning, but .because they have found it hore convenient to bypass the aforesaid forum arjd'approach tliis Uouii; :l;irectiy, which is not permissible. She stated ttiat extensive measurc;.s lave been taken by the respondeiit/NIDI^IC to. constitute tfie adjudicalory riecfiahisrn by way of a three tier system'in the .following manner : - I

¶1Vending Sub-Committee (Site of Spaces), Z. , Veriding Sub-Committee (Heath and Hygiene) and

¶3• Vending Sub-Committee (Enfoixement). 16-She stated that the creation of ttie afores.aid three Vending Si.if)- omrnittees. Vending.,Committee (M.ain), as alsc> of id'ie appellate" aul.Iloi il y /vhicfi was instituted to ' i-edre.ss the grievances. of tl)e squatters, lavA^kers, traders, residents or any othei: person against tlie d:ci.i.sfoi'i o('- nr.P.(C)47^13/2011,S2S'4/2011&cn/inecCedluaCCers Ffjge 13 iff 2U 1--. \ he Vending Committee(Main), was placed Before the SupremeCourtfer onslderatlpnand.the said three tier adjudicatory mechanism was duly n5pi-^v^r| ip i-hp jurlgrnpiTl-nf Gauicla Ram fsLipral- .7: '..'Pei-contra; .learned, counsels' Tor the petit!oners/vendors;wlur, ippeared on ditrerent'dates, vehemently opposed^ the aforesaid-stand- (aken by the respondent/NDMGand a-sserted that the schenle, Pioaled hy. ;he'.respondent/NDMC,for regulating vending activities in its jurisdiction lad lapsed on 30^-06.2011in the atjsenceof the enactmentot a legislation 3s per directionsot the Supreme Court in ttie case of GahidaJimiX.S.y|Jr^ 3nd as-on date, there is,'no'scheme in existence. It was canvassed ttiqt ;he' implication of the aforesaid order ot stdius quo passec,i ijy the Supreme Court on 1.5.07.2011can only.mean that.irrespective oT the Icict wliether the squatting is legal or illegal, tli.e same be .|.)ei'niitted to continue on. an 'as is .where is' basis, and such' statx/5 quo is to lie maintained by all the parties tiH a law is trained by. tiie legislature.

¶18Mr.' B.B... Sawhney, Sr.. Advocate "appearing roi'. tire petitioners/vendors submitted that in the case ot Gain da Pxarii (su pi a),. Hie Supreme Court had. directed-that tlie appropriate governn'ient rni.-ist enact a law on or before

30.06.2011 so that tlie liawkers may rjrecisely know contours oP their rights, tience dispute redressai mechanism-provided Tor in the scheme mentioned in tlie aforesaid judgmcint couli.i' operate only upto

30.06.2011 and thereafter:, ttie said schei.me would W/.fVrc; 4743/20Jllr 5254/2011 St connecied nyatters Page 14 'op ,2/t V\0 jtornaticallystand lapsed. He stated that no oth^r interpretationcan be iven to the order dated 15.07.2011,directingmaintenanceof sl;cil:u:^qu<.K view oP the qualifyingwoi'ds, "as it is obtainingtoday,- He ciiyi-i(..d i.luit the scheme was continuing to operate, as claimed by tht Ir.,..lined ounsel for the respondent/NDMC,then there was'no good reason for' tbe espondent/NDMCto have refrained from holding a draw of lols, which .as slated for the same day, i.e.,. :l 5.07.2011,ani that fact of the mailer-s that even the respondent/NDMChad understood the sCaLus quo order 1o mean that there is no scheme in.place after 30.6.2011,foi the i(;..a.ion :hat in para 68 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Gamd.a. ^upra}, all the writ petitionsand the interim applicationsfiled hefoie the upreme Court were disposed-ofwith clear and specificdirectionslhat the problem of, hawking .and .street vending could be regulated by the schemes framed-by the NDMC ahd MCD only upto 30.06.20:1J' and not thereafter. It was asserted on behalf of the petitionei's/veiidoi s tfial. as on .date, the directions of the Supreme Court that siciLus ('/(./u i.s lo be maintained by the parties can only be given one interpretation, which i.s ttiat till a law is ultimately enacted by the Parliament, irrespective ol liieii legal status, all the petitioners/vendors would; be permitted to c(.)ntinue squatting/hawking at the sites that liave been occupied by tliem.

¶19Insofar as the composition of the dispute redressal niecfiaili.Mii Ls concerned, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners si.ibmilte-(.l tha], contrary to understanding of the' respondent/NDMC, sr:henie W.P.(C) 47-43/201X, !^254/2CKU. Si cunnecCed iJiaCCers ' I'rjge 15'vf 28 .rifeproducedat paras 72 and 73 in the judgrnentin the case ol\GaindaKairi (:;L!pra), was not the one wliich'was actually recognized by the .':>n|.)reiTie : Court, and rather it is the dispute redressal scheme'mentioned in pai'a 7.'j ot the aforesaid judgrnent i.e., "'a scheme Poi-urban street vendoi.s Tor.^? IXD'MC area as formulated in' the year .2006, \^'hich was ultini;:itely- ^proved by the Supreme Court on 17'.05.20Q7, in the case of budliir i^adan (supra}., which is the scheme \A/|-iich finds mei'ition specilicnlly in t'le following para 74 and is the one approved by the .Supreme CoLiii. I.t v/as contended that even otherwise, the National' Capital 1 erritory ot IJell.ii aws (Special l^rovisions) Act, 2011 (liei'einafter r'efei'red to a,s "Speiciiaill '•oviiEioos Aclf) comes to ttie ^rescue ot the petitioners for the iea.soi:)' that sub-clause

(2) of Section 3 of tlie Special Provisions Act niandates naintenance of sCai'us quo as on

01.01.2006, notwithstanding any . ..idgment,• decree or order of any court, in respect of encroacliniont or unauttiorized development. Ttius, it was submitted on tiehalf of the )etitioners/v0ndors that they were entitled to graVrt of interim I'jrotecl ion • ll ttie enactment of a legislation to regulate havykJng/vendii'i.g activities in rban streets in Delhi on the basis of the National fJolicy on UrI.ian .Streel. •\/endor5; 2009 h-amed on 17.06.2009 and the Special f'rovisions Act.. •

¶0With reference to tti.e Specia[ Provisions /Act, Jeaiued !:'icnioi dvocate for the petitioners stated, that phrase, "unauthoriz.ed levelopment" used in the definition clause has'' to be seen in the .'-.ame ontext as tlie one in which the phrase "encroachment" has been defined, V,P.(C)^7^13/2011,5254/201:1« connectedinairers P'aye 1(7' Hv /herein it is n-ientioned that iDutting up of temporary, 5en'ii-l.;en-i|:vor.:iryor', ernianent structure for residential use or commercial use or any olhei se, and the placeirient.ofgoods on the pavements by the petitioners ls' abTe to be termed as unauthorized-use for maintaining status qut) under tlh'e Special Provisions Act. |v|uch emphasis was laid on tl)e aveinicnJ.s nade by the respondent/NDMCi^n its interin-i application filed before the Supreme Court in Gainda Ram's case (su-pra) in July 2011, to submit that the respondent/NDMC itself had stated in the said applicatioii tli.at the schehne had lapsed and therefore, the' only interpretation tl'iat can he .. ;)iven to sCaL'us quo order passed by'- tlie Supreme Courl; on t5:07.2011 cai~i be that no scheme would exist after

30.06.2(.):l .1 an(.i :hus,-the benefit of the Special Provisions /Act ought to be extended to tlve Petitioners. He submitted that the fjhrase \street vendors' lias been' ~iearly defined under the National Policy,on Urban Street Vendors, ZOtJ'J. Reliance was placed in the case of Patri Vyapar Mandal Pelfii (-l-lOL|d.)".ys; MCD, Town-l-i.all Ors.- reported as (2009)' :L2 SCC 475 ' and the provisions of the Speciaf Provisions Act to submit that even ttie Supi en'ie ^ • V- . • • Lourt had recognized the fact that the Special Provisions Act is the only Gentra.l law governing 'the field and it would '.have prirnacy over oilier Statutes and administrative orders. It is thus stated that the prrn/isions Of the N'DMC Act cannot be invoked-by the respondent/IMDMG'as the said • Act is not in consonance .with Article 96 of tl'ie Gonstitution of .[ndia and ; fuitherrnore, tfie Special Provisions Act being' valid till tlie end of-W.P.(C/^.743/2011, 52S^t/20.tl S< connected maU.ers Page I 7'of 2Si •-v., D Cc |3 ...S e . A • l\ F ' : c I Bcernber20il, no orders in derogaUon oF the provisionsoP the saul At.L n be passed. • , Mr. • S.K.: Trip:athi, Advocate appearing For some ' oF jtlie • i " ' ' , . • • ' • -titionei-s/vendorssought to embellish ttie-submissionsoF Mr.Sawhiiey, rVAdvocate,,and relied on the orders passed in V\V"IF".(C;)' 1449/./0.11..11. -ititled Mnhd. Ismail vs. NDMC Ors^ to urge, that tlie "Ar)po.llate uthority" constituted..tinder the dispute.redressal rnecFianism lor the DMC area, has not be'en functioning,whicFi Fact he stated is boine uu[ -0m.,a perusal of the order dated 08^03.201:1:.passed in the aForesai.d' ase, .wherein the Court took notice of the claim oF the petitioner/vendor hereih to the eFFect that inspite oF orders passed by \he Appellate .uthority allowing squatting:at a particular site, till a Final detenni;naLiori y the Vending Committee as to-his eligibility,the respondent/NI..:)MCand Itie police were disturbirig Fiis activities. In the aForesaid oi'der-, ttie taten'ient of-the, counsel for the respondent/NDMC was recorded to the (jffectthat the appellate authority, whose order'was being relied upi.m by ;he-petitioner therein, was constituted ii'iitialiy For tlVe'MCD aieas an(.l Inter tarted Functioning, For tlve'MDMC oreas as well For tl-Ve reason that at.that ti-me, .there was no separate-.appellate a uthority.,.for the MDMC aieas, l.)Ut ubsequently, in accordance with the scheme approved by tl)e. Supreme ~OLirt, Chairpei'son,. MDMC •had constituted a separate ai.ipellate 3Lithority For • the MDMC areas. . "I'l'iereFore, .the appellate a appointed earlier had ceased to have jurisdiction-c/L/a the MDMC.area;,;. 47-'ll3/20iy.r S254/20I.1. Si connecf.ed njat'lers Page Hf of'Iff as Lhus contended on behalf of the petitioners/vendors l.hal, the foresaid'orderclearly indicates that the appellateauthorityin.the MI.)Ml. reas is not functioning. ' .

¶2I^eliance,was also placed on the minutes of the nieeting of the X'ending Committeedated 11.03.2010, to claim that if the fact of wliether there was actuaj squatting/vendii'igwas verified by.Ll'ie Coniniitteo;and ii the names of ttie petitioners/vendors figured in the eligibility list prepared Liy the respondent/NDMCfor holding the di"aw of lots, Ih'en it dit.l not li.e iji Ihe mouth of the respondent/NDMC to clain-i that the petitioners, wlio had l)een verified •and found to be eligible, M/vere nob entitled to .sguat al: /aridu's sites in the IMDMC area after 30.06.2011. I

¶23In "rebuttal, counsel for respondent/NIDMC Lii.s|.'Hited Ifie :ontenl:ions of the petitioners/vendors and while reiterating lier eaiilei" submissions, asserted that .the petitioners did •"hot liave any' legally enforceable right, created' on basis of the eligibility' list drawii by V • / MDMC, for claiming, grant of interin'i order:s in ;theii" favour'. .Sl'ie agair) eferred to paras 68, 69, 75, 76 and 78 of thd judgment-in the ca.so of 5ainda Ram (supra), to emptiasize tliat when -th.e aforesaid para.s are ead collectively, it is clear ttiat petitioners carinot claim an entitlement J:o any interihi ordei's as sought by' them in tlie |).io.sent :5roceedings: .She fui'ther stated . that eveii otfierwise, tfie .S|.)ecial lovisions Act relied .upon by tl'ie petitionei'S'' has duly recognized ttie w:p.(C) 4743/2011, 5:2S^/:2Uil&conne.cl:e<i,tinners P^tj'S 19 ttf 2f( • ; ,.A . !• chemes prepared by the local ciuthorities in Liie National Capital I'oi'.iri if Delhi for regulation of iirban street vendors. To substantiate-I he said ubmission, she drew the attention oT this Couj't to the preartible oP the Poresaid /Act, which mentions the Pact that all the scPiemies prepnred by local authorities in National .Ca-pital Territory t.ip Delhi,. Ppi" ecjulation crP'urban street vendors in accordancfe witli the National ['(.ilicy n. Urban Street Vendors, 2009 and the Master Plan Por DelPii Z02 I, have een implemented and "Purther that more, time is required Por prtiper Tiplementation oP the schernes recjarding hawkei's' and urban ,sl:reel. endors- • • • ' ^.4. A specific .rePerence was made by the ;learned counsel' Pui' tlie espondent/NDMC to Section 2(i)'(c) of the Special Provisions Act, whic.h iePines the phrase "encroachment" to claim ,tliat it does not cover the petitioners herein, who are squattei's. Further rePei'ence was made to. the provision of Section .3 of the Special Provisions Act, wiiich• contains a non xbstante clause, to stat0 that status quo with regard to ttie encroaclirrient-unauthorized development as on '01.01.2006,' mentioned in the said jruvision, was in .. the-coritext oP defi.i'iition of tPie "filitases encroachnnent" and "unauthorized development" .set out in the definition- \ -lause at Sections 2(l)(c) and 2(l)(i) resi3ectively of ttie ..S|"iecial rovrsionsAct and thus/the petitioners/vendors^did not qualify.i.unlcrttie ' ^fforesaidenactmentfor cjaimin-gprotectionas none of the ingredientsset out in the provisionsof-the aforesaidenactmentare found to exist in tli.eir' case. .11: was submitted-that the Special Provisions Act, whicli crime into • effect in the year 2007 and has been extended froiTi tiirie to time nnd .. lastly, till December

20.11, does not give pefinission to persons tc.i tcvsiaii; any activity once they have been renioved by the civic autl'iority and iimilaiiy, the Scl'ieme of 2009 does not entitle the registrants l.n .':(.|i.iat hnless they have been allotted a specific site. In support oT tlie afoiesaid ;LibmissiO'n, reliance was place on-the judgment in tlie case-of M.CD' ys,', -"iu'iTiam Kaur reported as

(1989) SCC

¶101For tlie |.:)i;ir|.H)se of nterpreting the meaning of the ph,rase,- "structure", refereiice was -made ;o judgment of Supreme Court inv .tlie case of ^Mu.nicjjja] corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. vs. In'dian Oil Corporation. Lt.L!., sported as AIR 1991-SC

¶686For the purpose of ui'idei'standii'iy die expression, 'status quo', reference wa^ made to the judgment in the ca.se of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. State of Bihar oc Qi s. rei.Kui.ed as 1987 (-Supp) see 394'to submit that in ordinary legal connotation, term "staiius quo'iiriplies'the existing state of things at any givei;: point'of time. ' ,

¶25As for the National Policy on Urban Street-Vei'idors,' counsel for I.ho 'espondent/NDMC stated that botli, the 2004 policy and the 200y policy, ind mention 1n the decision of the Supreme Court in t-lie case of Gajiida: EiiLlT]—(siLPI'a). and It wbs only after taking into consideration tire .s'aid policies, did the Court directed tlie institutionaiization of url)an sIicpI-vending through legislation. It was further stated that at the time of V\fJ .(CJ 4743/2015254/20X1 co/inecf.e/./irrafters, Pfige. 21 of;zft '} I-i delivering ,the judgment'clalecl

8.10-2010, tire Supreme Court took noti.ce Dp'the NCT or Delhj Laws (Special Provisions) Act-/ 2009, which was valid upto 3Q.12.2010, apart trom I'loticing ttve l^lodel Street VencJors 'Protection-, ot Livelihood and Regulation oP Street Vendiiig) 'l;Vill, 700'.-) ntroduced by. the Governrnen.t of India, . Ministry, of llousing Ik Urban-Poverty /Alleviation. She stated that nothi.ng r,ie,w is now being subniitt-ed by ttie petitioners/vendors herein, for ttie present p.etitic.ms l.n I.)P entertained for any purpose-whatsoever and all the grievances iriisecl-by-petitioners can easily' be • addressed -before ttie Vending ornmiittee/appellate authority under.the scheme relating to ui'bnri slreel: vending in the MDMC area, which fofa continue to ren'iaih functional, even after 30.6.2011. . ' ; • ' . '

¶25Ttiis Court has heard these matters at length since l'7.f').'.:'0 I. I., on clifPerenL'- dates. ' Various counsels for the petitioners/vendors and tlio Standi.ng Counsel for tl'ie respondent/MDMC liad addressed l:l')e Coiiii:. Theii-respective arguments have been .taken inote of. Botff sides tiave made strenuous efforts to explain what the',status quo oidei' dated.

15.7.2011 .'passed by-tfie Supreme 'Court in case of - .G|',aio.da F^cimfsupral implies. The /e/'tmotV/"of the arguments addressed on belialf of the .petilioners/vendors is that the status quo order-read wil.ti tiie qualifying-.words, "as it is obtaining today", suffixed to the or'dei', can only be read to imply that' as on date, i.e., 15.'7.2011, there was I'lo scl'ieii-'ia' operational in the MDMC.areas to regulate vending'activities and till a law 47^/3/21011, S3S.4/201:S.Si conn.eclBd rtwdjers ' ' . PaijB 22 of 23 •i7 ' a: c s ultimately enacted by.the legislature, all the petitioners, irrespective of ;heir legal status, can continue squattin.g/hawkingat different sites that nave been occupied by th.em. It is also asserted that in the teeth of the status quo orders passed by the Supreme Court, the respondent/NDMCin :;ollusionwith the police authorities, is threatening to illegally remove the petitionei's/vendors from different sites, which is detrimental, adverse, Harassing and belligerent to those, who have been found eligible by the respondent/NDMC for being allotted specific tehbazari spaces within the MDMC jurisdiction, but are being threatened due to lack of further action n this regard which is pending at the end of the respondent/NDMC. The second limb of submissions made • by learned counsels for petitioners/vendors was that the Special Provisions Act would additionally come to rescue of the •petitioners/vendors, which also requires maintenance of status quo as existing on 01.10.2006, till th.e en.d of December, 2011.

¶27On the other hand; the main thrust of the arguments addressed by the counsel' for the respondent/NDMC was that as the legislature has failed to enact an appropriate, legislation in terms of the decision of, the Supreme Court in the case of Gaiiida Ramfsuara), the subsequent order date.d

15.7.2011 directing parties to maintain the status quo as it is obtaining on the said date can only imply-that the state of affairs as existing on date are not to be-disturbed, until the rights of the-parties can. be finally determined through legislation. It was submitted that while W.P,(C) 474-3/2011^ 5254/2011 &. connected matters ' c t- •• Dssing L-he status,quo-order on 15.07.2011, the Suprenie Court wn.s ^nscioLis of" the fact; that the Parliament had yet to enact a C3n-i.prehensive'legislation to regulate urban street vending and in such crcumstanees, it. goes without saying that it was the inteiit of the (...ouit that the entire dispute redressal mechanism as recognized in tiie case of Gainda^RaDlCsjJBm).would continue to remain in operation, so as to r;gulate the uri:5an street vending in.the NIDMC area, till the legislationin fiat-regard•is •enacted. ' Further, it was stressed' tliat tl)e !-,.|.'ec.ial Provisions Act did not provide any protective unM:)fella to tlie petitiono-rs, ,v/hose squatting activities neither fell under delinition of "encroachment", nor under "unauthorized developrneiit". :it was fuither csserted tfiat •even otherwise pending an appi'opriate legislation,- tl.iR' rJDMC Act-wa-y availableas a'fall back option and the relevantprovisions i1 the said enactment would continue to regulate street,vending activity iii Ihe NDMC area and the petitioners/vendors cou'ci not claim a vested right, 10 squat at any site of their own. \ :?8. From above,- it is apparent that 'arguments and countci' a'rguments tiave been raised by both sides on tlTeir.respective versic)ns of j •Ihe M'lieaning and'the .effect of the status quo order dated l.'r.7.2():l.',l. r |;assed by the Supreme "Court. It is also very apparent, that the meaning :ouglit to' be attributed by both sides as to tire implication'of tlie .-said :tatus c|Lio order, is dian'ietrically opposed to each otfier. Not only this, both sides are at a tangeint on the factum of tfie'pehdency or otfierwise of j yJ743/.7.0Xl^ 525^4/20.1.1 8r. connecJ.ed rn3l:!:ers '• fsii/'e 24 of ;-?,7P (7' ti t • q 16' interim applications filed before the Supreme Court by bulli, l.lje applicants/vendorsand'the respondent/NDMC,for ciarifications,on which •ie aforesaid order came to-be passed asMt is the stand, (.'f the Eispor'ident/MDMCtliat the aforesaid applications were not -disposiiHl oT /.hile passing the order dated-15.7;20l;L. The parties are poles apart or,i ie. question of imiport-of the status quo order, and tlie effect of the " .J • j ' , bsen/ations made by • the Supreme Court 1n ttie case' oT CaiJlUa lamfsupfa)'as regards' the approval of.NDMC scheme. 1hey arc also at bggerheads on the coniposition of the" adjudicatory.inechaiiisin in the, IMOMC jurisdiction and the manner of il:s functioning, as also the'identity )f-'the scheme which is valid'ly operating in the NDMC areas foi" regulaliny rban street vending, which had all been subjefct nnatter of consicJeraUon before: the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. ,' The other" issues ' . X gitated by the parties-, s,tari:ing from ttie interpretation of the various jbservations"'rnade by the Supren'ie Court in the afoi-esaid Judgi.nenl', he Tormulation of the scheme-as approved by .the-Supreme Couri. in the case, of Sudhir Madan -fs.upra), to cornpositioi'i of IIle dis|ii,ftes 'edressal mechanism and its validity, as also the meaning of ,tl')t-; .si.al.us tup order, are all in a turmoil as both ttie parties I'lave stoutly'defended heir respective stands which are con'ipletely at'variance with e-ach ul.iier. rhe only .common ground shared by the pai ties .is tlie factuin of pas.-^iinq jf recent judgment dated

08.i0.20;I.U ;in case of Gg[n.da ?tarn(supria.')and the subsequent status quo order dated ;l.5.7.20l.t passed i tAr.P.{Cj <^743/20x1^ 5254/2011 Bi-cdnneKted luaUers fac/e 25 "irf 2S r? • by. lil'ie Supreme Court. • ' • .

¶9, Ttie rountainheacl of the dispute ii'i the .'present Ccises tlK..ioloic srriains the status quo order dated'15.7.20J.1 passed by tlie Su|n eino:)-. Court-' The issue which:is sought to be agitated.bePore thrs L.aurl. is th,:it. tsvin.g regard to the status quo Order, whethera stay order ou.qiil. to l.)e Granted by this Court in tavourot the petitioners/vendorsas prayed toi l-)y lerri, ir.respective-of' their legal status, thus foi Ijiddiny respondent/MDMC Pron-i ttireatening and/or removing tl)em Pi'om the cif-ferentsites occupied by themi in the NPMC areas. In other words, i.hi.v oui't is being•called'upon to examine tne meaning,:scope and eirect oP the status quo .oixler elated 15.07.201;'. On the question oP'how to ctscertain the implication oP a status qu.,-. oi'der passed by a cou.rt, in llie case oP Messrs Bharat Coking Coal .LiiTviloJ fsupraL it was obsei'ved l.)y tPio isupreme Court that tPie expression, 'stai.us quo' is undoubtedly a lerm oP ;;ii;nbiguity and at times, gives rise to doubt and d.iPPicull:y and in c.nse nny party lias any doubt on Itie n|ieaning and tPie ePPect oP the slr.il.i.i.s (|Uo order, the proper course. Por,such a. party would be to approacli. the. tlouii: l:hat had passed the status-quo order, to seeJk.clariPications.

¶30In the case at hand, -while seeking i.i:) ride'the wave oP tPie aPuresaid status quo order,. .the p.arties liaye chn.sen to bveiiook one im|)Oiinnl: a'ctor, .whicl'i is that a'Status quo order operates on both sides. Ihe Supreme Court has passed orders requiring both sides to maintain sl.ntus . t . r~ .- -.V-PlCC]'^7^13/2011, BZ'S-'l/y.Ollff, connoct.ei/ n.^ners faye .26 af .:?« :|u.o. Once such, an order of tlie Suprenie C-ourt is:on record, i.iie. same lot only binds ail tlie parties,to the adjudication, and all the parties, civil or judicial who are required to act in accordance with the said orc.lois, but t equally binds the Hi.gh Court troin interPeringwitivsuch an. order, as tlie-said order has been passed in litigations bePore tli'e-highest (Joi.iri:.oP tl)e and. ' •

¶31The Orders oP the• Supreiiie Court'are on record. TTi.e status (|U(i order is a clear signal to the. l-ligPi' Court as well-, to avoid granting any Di'der, includi,ng an interim order, when the Supreirie Court has directed. If" • . ' • • - ' • lor status quo to be niaint^ined. In sucP) circun/istances, iP tPiis Court vvas to grant a stay order in' Pavour oP the petitioners/vendors arrayed bePoi e! t; it would' be tantanyiount to negating the orde.i"S oP the Supr'erncv (.'^ourt, iA/|-iic|-i require, the parties' to'maintain status quo pending ena(;l:n.)erit op appi'opriate legislation. IP either oP the pailie's wei'e unclear ^rPxjul: the nterpretation oP the status quo order, it was Por tli.er)") to Piave n|,)plied l.o .:he Supreme Court for clariPications thereoP. Additionally, tlie;'reliance-placed by the petitioners/vendors on the ,Special Provisions Act-seekiiiq nteiim legal sanctity to the placement oP goods by tl'ienr on the ..jgvements:, by terming ^ it as, encroachment/unauthorized .use, as ecognized under the said Act and their contention that tlie Sripiome ] :purt had-recognizedthe Pact that th.e Special ProvisionsAct is t.he only -entral law having primacy over otherStatutes,ar:e also matters tl'ial. the 47-^3/2011, 5254/2011 connected nishers . ' 27 of 2!X petiL-ioners/venclorsought to have placed before the Supreme Couii, while seeking clariricationsoP the status quo o-rder.' It would-there[(.Me l.)e advisable tor the petitioners/vendorsas also the respondent/l\li:)M(::Lo approach bhe Supreme Court' and make Cl-iei)- submissions Uieio-as regards their grievances. However, as boUV parties insisted thnl (heir arguments be taken note of and'theirsubmissionsbe placed on record, some pains have been taken to do the needful.

¶32hi view of the aforesaidfacts and circumstances,-thisCourt is of tlie opinion that it will not be appropriatefor it to grant-stayorders in the face of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011passed by the Supreme c:ourt. ' It is reiteratedthat any such ordershall be an anti-thesisto tlie. orders of the Supreme Court, which must be respectedboth, in letterand sjurit. I.n 55uch circumstances,the present petitions are'.disposed of by" declining grant of any interim orders to the petitioners. However, libei ty is yrn-nted to both th.e parties to apply to the Supreme CoLirt for a clarificationof ti.e status quo order dated 15.07.2011 passed in' the case of Gainda.Kan, syer^.- The partiesare left to bear their own costs. PCTOER^I kl:) , 2011 -r.(CJ 525^1/2011S, connectedtnal.ters -itiDGI-I'ayB. 28 21:1

•4 r * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 + W.P.fC^ 4347/2011. 4559/2011. 4593/2011. 4610/2011. 4650/2011. 4651/2011. 4827/2011. 4923/2011. 5024/2011. 5028/2011. 4775/2011. 5247/2011. 5254/2011. 5255/2011. 5257/2011. 5258/2011. 5261/2011. 5-262/2011. 5263/2011. 5264/2011. 5277/2011. 5292/2011. 5312/2011. 5317/2011. 5402/2011. 5403/2011. 5405/2011. 5408/2011. 5410/2011. 5411/2011. 5413/2011. 5418/2011. 5423/2011. 5444/2011. 5473/2011. 5484/2011. 5485/2011. 5497/2011. 5498/2011. 5503/2011. 5504/2011. 5505/2011. 5506/2011. 5507/2011. 5508/2011. 5595/2011. 5614/2011. 5615/2011. 5616/2011. 5618/2011. 5627/2011. 5630/2011. 5631/2011. 5643/2011. 5645/2011. 5654/2011. 5656/2011. 5711/2011. 5717/2011. 5718/2011. 5728/2011. 5729/2011. 5731/2011. 5732/2011. 5737/2011. 5738/2011. 5739/2011. 5743/2011. 5761/2011. 5784/2011. 5785/2011. 5791/2011. 5794/2011. 5797/2011. 5798/2011. 5822/2011. 5911/2011. 5918/2011. 5928/2011. 5931/2011. 5933/2011. 5934/2011. 5935/2011. 5957/2011. 5965/2011. 5966/2011. 5967/2011. 5968/2011. 5969/2011. 5970/2011. 5974/2011. 6096/2011. 6100/2011. 6101/2011. S102/2011..- 6107/2011. 6108/211. 6114/2011- 6115/2011. 6116/2011. 6117/2011. 6118/2011. 6119/2011. 6120/2011. 6121/2011. 6122/2011. 6123/2011. 6144/2011. 6250/2011. 6270/2011. 6271/2011. 6449/2011. 6527/2011. 6528/2011. 6529/2011. 6530/2011. 6531/2011. 6532/2011. 6533/2011. 6534/2011. 6538/2011 6555/2011. 6667/2011. 6668/2011. 6669/2011. 6670/2011. 6684/2011. 6701/2011. 5173/2011. 4739/2011. 5046/2011. 5051/2011. 5157/2011. 4649/2011. 4722/2011. 2601/2011. 2S02/2011. 3052/2011. 3181/2011. 3185/2011. 3189/2011. 3196/2011. 4340/2011. 4342/2011. 4343/2011. 4344/2011. 4345/2011. 4349/2011. 4350/2011. 4352/2011. 4354/2011. 4356/2011. 4358/2011. 4359/2011. 4360/2011. 4361/2011. 4362/2011. 4363/2011. 4364/2011. 4365/2011. 4366/2011. 4367/2011. 4368/2011. 4369/2011. 4370/2011. 4371/2011. 4372/2011. 4373/2011. 4374/2011. 4375/2011. 4377/2011. 4387/2011. 4388/2011. 4389/2011. 4391/2011. 4392/2011. 4393/2011. 4395/2011. 4396/2011. •439872011. 4398/2011. 4399/2011. 4400/2011. 4402/2011. 4404/2011. 4405/2011. 4406/2011. 4407/2011. 4408/2011. 4409/2011. 4410/2011. 4412/2011. 4413/2011. 4414/2011. 5341/2011. 4847/2011. 4859/2011. 4887/2011. 4990/2011. W.P.(C)4347/2011andconnectedmatters Page i of8 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. I i 5063/203.1, 5089/2011, 5099/2011, 5114/2011. 5115/2011, 5117/2Q11, 5129/2011. 5139/2011. 5144/2011. 67Q8/:>ni1 6799/2011. 6824/2011. 6825/2011. 6896/2011, 6901/2011. 6902/2011. 6826/2011. 6827/2011. 6903/2011. 6905/2011, 6906/2011. 6907/2011. 6908/2011. ^ 6910/2011, 6917/2011. 6919/2011. 6920/2011. 6921/2011 6922/2011. 6932/2011 and 5420/2011. 6904/2011. 6909/2011. IM THE MATTERS OF MOHD. AZAD Petitionerin W.P.(C)4347/2011 MOHD. ALAM Petitionerin W.P.(C)4559/2011 KIRPAL SINGH ..... Petitionerin W.P.(C)4593/2011 SHAILENDERKUI^AR 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 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4775/2011 RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5247/2011 RAM DASS ~ Petitionerin W.P,(C) 5254/2011 VISHAMBARJHA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5255/2011 DINESH KUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5257/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5258/2011 RAJESH CGUPTA AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5261/2011 LAKHPATIAND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5262/2011 SOHAN LAL AND ORS. ..... Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5263/2011 KEDARI Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5264/2011 ARUN KUMAR ALIAS LUCKY Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5277/2011 MITHU LAL Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5292/2011 MOHD. ZAHID Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5312/2011 SHAKEELAHMED Petitionerin W.P,(C) 5317/2011 NAND KISHORE . Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5402/2011 RINKU KUMAR GU