Bhawani Singh v. Ndmc and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on:

24.10.2011 4593/2011, 4610/2011. 4650/2011,—4651/2011.^R^7/2011. 4923/2011, 5Q2A/7nii 5028/2011, 4775/2011! 5247/201/ -;:>S4/2Q11 52gZZ2^ 5258/2011: 5761/2011! ItlZlV,] 5264/2011, 5277/2011, 5292/^nii 5312/2011. ?;:?i7/'>nii M02/2011. 5403/2011! 5405/2Q1l! 5411/2011; 5413>201i: 54I8/201/ ^^03/2011 lllJfooV.' 54Z3Z2011: 5484/2011: 5485/2011. 5497/20ir! llttflnV. K. g^li: 5504/2011! 5.o.;^nii; 5506/2011! K 5508/2011, 5595/2011. 5614/2011 5615/2011, 5616/2011 >glgZ2^5627/20n 56^0/2011! ^^^i^n.t! 5645/2011,—5654/2011, 5656/2011, 5711/2011. 5717/2011. 57I8/2011! 572«/:>nti: .729/2011! ^7^1/2011! 5738/2011, 5739/2011. 5743/2011. 57Si/201l^ 5785/2011, 5791/2011, 5794/2011. 5797/2011. ' 5822/2011, 5911/2011. 5918/2011. 5928/2011^ 5931/2011, 5933/2011, 5934/2011, 5935/2011. 5957/5011 5965/2011, 5966/2011. 5967/2011. 5968/201l! 5970/2011,—5974/2011. 6096/2011. 6100/2011. 6101/2011. 6108/211, 6114/2011. 6115/2011. 6118/2011, 6119/2011. 6120/2011. 6123/2011. 6144/2011. 6250/2011. 6271/2011, 6449/2011, 6527/2011. 6528/2011. 6530/2011. 6531/2011, 6532/2011. 6533/2011. 6538/2011, 6555/2011, 6667/2011. 6668/2011. 66fa9/2011, 6670/2011. 6684/2011 5173/2011 mmil 5046/2011: 505l^ll! 51»;7/.01i: 464Q/2m7 4722/2011, 2601/2011. 2602/2011. 3052/2011. 3181/2011. 3185/2011, 3189/2011. 3196/2011. 4340/2011. 4342/2011. 4343/2011, 4344/2011. 4345/2011. 4349/2011. 4350/2011. 4352/2011, 4354/2011. 4356/2011. 4358/2011, 4359/2011. 4360/2011, 4361/2011. 4362/2011. 4363/2Q11. 43S4/2Q11. 4365/2011, 4366/2011. 4367/2011. 4368/2011. 4369/2011. 4371/2011. 4372/2011. 4373/2011. 4374/2011^ 4375/2011, 4377/2011, 4387/2011, 4388/2011. 4389/2011. 4391/2011, 4392/2011. 4393/2011. 4395/2011. 4396/2011. -4398/2011, 4398/2011. 4399/2011. 4400/2011. 4402/2011. 4404/2011. 4405/2011. 4406/2011. 4407/2011. 4408/2011. 4409/2011, 4410/2011. 4412/2011. 4413/2011. 4414/2011. 5341/2011, 4847/2011. 4859/2011. 4887/2011. 4990/2011. W.P.(C}4347/2011andconnectedmstters Page lofS \ it 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. 5117/2011. 5129/2011. 5099/2011. 5139/2011. 5114/2011. 5144/2011. 5115/2011. 6708/2011. 6799/2011. 6824/2011. 6825/2011. 6826/2011. 6827/2011. 6896/2011. 6901/2011. 6902/2011. 6903/2011. 6904/2011. S905/2011" 6906/2011. 6907/2011. 6908/2011. 6909/2011. 6910/2011. 6917/2011. 6919/2011. 6920/2011. 6921/2011. 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 SHAILENDERKUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C)4610/2011 SANJAY Petitionerin W.P.(e)4650/2011 . BABLU Petitionerin W.P.(C)4651/2011 AMAR NATH SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4827/2011 GANESH PiRASAD 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 '^^^ARI 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 GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5403/2011 HARJEET KAUR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5405/2011 NARESH KUMAR RAO AND ORS Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5408/2011 ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5410/2011 NABI HASAN Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5411/2011 HARENDERPRASAD Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5413/2011 BHUPINDERSINGH Petitionerin W.P;(C) 5418/2011 GOVIND SINGH AND ANR. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5423/2011 BAL CHAND GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5444/2011 MUNNA THAKUR @RAMESH THAKUR Petitionerin W.P.(C)5^73/2011 W.P.(C)4347/2011andconnectedmatters Page2 of8 \ ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. .... Petitioners SUNDER SINGH ..... Petitioner DHARAI^i VEER SINGH Petitioner MAHESH PAL SINGH Petitioner RAJ RANI Petitioner DULI CHAND Petitioner SHANTA RAM Petitioner MAHENDER PAL Petitioner PAWAW-K-UMARSiWGN P-etlt-iomr-TARUN KUMAR Petitioner RAVINDER KUMAR . Petitioner DINESH YADAV Petitioner RAM BAHADUR Petitioner ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner RAM AVTAR Petitioner SHANKAR LAL Petitioner PADAM SINGH Petitioner NEENA Petitioner MOHD. HASMAT Petitioner VIPIN PRASAD Petitioner SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner B.ABU KHAN Petitioner VIJAY KUMAR Petitioner SHASHI KUMAR PANDEY Petitioner PREMA SINGH. Petitioner PURAN CHAND Petitioner OMKAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner KUMER Petitioner RAJENDER Petitioner BHAGNARAYAN YADAV Petitioner KARAN VIR Petitioner MATA PRASAD YADAV Petitioner BABU LAL Petitioner RAMESH CHAND Petitioner LAXMI Petitioner BHAGWAN SAHAI Petitioner RAM NIWAS ..... Petitioner NAVIN SINGH Petitioner DHARAM RAJ YADAV Petitioner VINOD KESHRI Petitioner ANIL SINGH Petitioner lUIRANJAN DEV Petitioner KULDEEP SHANKU5^ Petitioner SURENDER KHURANA @ NEERU Petitioner SURESH BABU Petitioner V^.P.fC) 4347/2011 and connected matters in W.P.(C) 5484/2011 n W.P.(C) 5485/2011 n W.P.(C) 5497/2011 n W.P.(C) 5498/2011 n W.P.(C) 5503/2011 n W.P.(C) 5504/2011 n W.P.(C) 5505/2011 n W.P.(C) 5506/2011 n44t.J?4C->550Z/-2011 n W.P.(C) 5508/2011 n W.P.(C) 5595/2011 n W.P.(C) 5614/2011 n W.P.(C) 5615/2011 n W.P.(C) 5616/2011 n W.P.(C) 5618/2011 n W.P.(C) 5627/2011 n W.P.(C) 5630/2011 n W.P.(C) 5631/2011 n V\/.P.(C) 5643/2011 n W.P.(C) 5645/2011 n W.P.(C) 5654/2011 n W.P.(C) 5656/2011 n W.P.(C) 5711/2011 n W.P.(C) 5717/2011 n W.P.(C) 5718/2011 n W.P.(C) 5728/2011 n W.P.(C) 5729/2011 n W.P.(C) 5731/2011 n W.P.(C) 5732/2011 n W.P.(C) 5737/2011 n W.P.(C) 5738/2011 n V\/.P.(C) 5739/2011 h W.P.(C) 5743/2011 n W.P.(C) 5761/2011 n W.P.(C) 5784/2011 n W.P.(C) 5785/2011 n W=P=(C) 5791/2011 n W.P.(C) 5794/2011 n W.P.(C) 5797/2011 n W.P.(C) 5798/2011 n W.P.(C) 5822/2011 n W.P.(C) 5911/2011 n W.P.(C) 5918/2011 n W.P.(C) 5928/2011 n W.P.(C) 5931/2011 J GULSHAN KUMAR Petitioner in W.P.(C PAWAN KUMAR PettttoneHn-WTP-.-(C SUBHASH SHRIVASTAV Petitioner in W.P.(C RAM RAJ Petitioner in W.P.(C AJAY KUMAR Petitioner in W.P, RAMESH CHANDER @ RAMESH CHAND. Petitioner in W.P. VINOD KHANA Petitioner in W.P. KISHAN l_AL Petitioner in W.P. MOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner in W.P. SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner in W.P. PRADEEP GUPTA Petitioner in W.P. RAM KUMAR Petitioner in W.P. SUNEHRI lAL Petitioner in W.P. BHAGIRATHI CHOURASIYA Petitioner in W.P. MOHD. SHARIQ Petitioner in W.P. KARUNA SHANKAR PANDEY Petitioner in W.P. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner in W.P. MD. SHAMSHAD ALAM Petitioner in W.P. VIRENDER Petitioner in W.P. TRILOK CHAND Petitioner in W.P. VINOD Petitioner in W.P. SALIM KHAN Petitioner in W.P. SATYA PRAKASH Petitioner in W.P. SANJAY KAUSHIK Petitioner in W.P. REHMAT ALI KHAN Petitioner in W.P. INDULESH Petitioner in W.P. ANIL KUMAR BISHT Petitioner in W.P. KAMLESH DEVI YADAV Petitioner in W.P. CHARAN SINGH Petitioner in W.P. ARUN SINGH Petitioner in W.P. SATISH KUMAR PUSHKARNA ..... Petitioner in W.P. SHIV NARAIN SAHU Petitioner in W.P. CHAND KAPOOR Petitioner in W.P. JITENDER KUh^AR Petitioner in W.P. RAJ KUMAR Petitioner in W.P. PAPPU Petitioner in W.P. BASANT LALTIWARI Petitioner in W.P. NEPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner in W.P. SURENDER SAINI Petitioner in W.P. BHAWANI SINGH Petitioner in W.P. MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA ..... Petitioner in W.P. RAM KISHAN Petitioner in W.P. LAl-A RAM Petitioner in W.P. PRAKASH ..... Petitioner in W.P. BALWANT SINGH Petitioner in W.P. 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 ) 6108/2011 ) 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 W.P.(C) 4347/2011 and connected matters L t. htnfsh Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6670/2011 KTSHORI LAL Petitionerin W.P.(C) 6684/2011 BACHU SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 6701/2011 ANIL KUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5173/2011 SURESH GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C)4739/2011 BAHADUR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5046/2011 MAHENDRA PRASAD AND ORS Petitioners in D/yiviij Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5157/2011 SIMANTSHARMA Petitionerin W-^C) 4649/2011 RAM SINGH AND ORS. Petitioners'"W.P-(C)47^22/2011 VINAY KUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 2601/2011 SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA Petitionerin WP-(C) ROHAN SHARMA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 3052/2011 KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS Petitioners RAM PRAKASH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 3185/2011 ^™ngh Petitionerin W.P.(C) 3189/2011 y/FFR cingh ••••• Petitionerin W.P.(C) 3196/2011 SURENDRASINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4340/2011 ,,cha Petitionerm W.P.(C) 4342/2011 cijrhash Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4343/2011 DASU RAM YADAV Petitionerin W.P.(C)4344/2011 qiiRFNDFR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4345/2011 foKENDER Petitionerin W.P.JC)4349/2011 c.jMT-rA Petitionerin W.P.(C)4350/2011 BHAGWATSWAROOPGUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C)4352/2011 SHAKALSINGH PetitionermW.P.(C)^354/20 NARENDERKUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C)4356/2011 rdtt pai Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4358/2011 RAiu Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4359/2011 rtCHnic ' Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4360/2011 M CHHABRA Petitionerin W.P.(C)4361/2011 BINDU DEVI Petitioner m . MOHD. MUZAHID AND ANR. Petitioners KAMLESH UJJAINWAL Petitioner!" llss/Mll i^tcham Petitioner m W.P.(C) 4365/2011 DEv" CHARAN Petitionerin W.P.JQ4366/2011 I Petitionerin W.P.CC)4367/2011 ^RHA Petitionerin W.P.(C)4368/2011 ?EgT SEhGAL Petitionerin W.P.(C)4369/2011 POONAM WNA Petitionerin W.P.(C)4370/201 YUSUF KHAN Petitionerin W.P. C 4371/2011 cuaMTT Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4372/2011 Si AND ORS, ~""wVrgV37X" RAJ KUMARI Pet, loner,n WP. C 4374/2011 gyppj Petitionerin W.P.(C)437b/2Uii Vi/.P.(C)4347/2011 and connectedmatters J , Petitionerin W.p.(C)4377/2011 .....Pe^onerinW.P.W OM PRAKASH PATHAK I" ZHa 4389/MU GOVIND PRASAD GUPTA PetitionernW.P. C 4389/2011 AWTQ AHMFn PetitionermW.P.(C)4391/2011 Xhdkhurshid SAMARTH PRASADYADAV Petitioner ' 4395/20II r^AT^ Petitionerin W.P.{C)4397/2011 rSurayXv Petitionerin W.P.(C)4398/2011 ARUN KUMAR BANSAL Petitionerin W.P.(C)4399/2011 . MVl Petitionerin W.P.(C)4400/2011 CANIAY KUIVIARGUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C)4402/2011 Ear qH CHAND ••••• Petitionerin W.P.(C)4404/2011 PRAMOD Petitionerin W.P.(C)4405/2011 VIIAY KUI^IARSINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4406/2011 riCmScH Petitionerin W.P.CC)4407/2011 A^HOK 3AISWAL Petitionerin W.P.(C)4408/2011 nAi TP KUMAR GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C)4409/2011 PeWi°"e^4410/2011 f^AN Petitionerin W.P,(C)4412/2011 lAi <;INGH PAL Petitionerin W.P.(C)4413/2011 A=HnK KUMARYADAV Petitionerin W.P.(C)4414/2011 MOHn ALI PeWl""®'-i" 5341/2011 rm-^E LAL Petitionerin W.P.CC)4847/2011 SYE°D RIZWANAU Petitionerin W.P.(g4859/2011 MAMm 1^1 IMAR Petitionerin. W.P.(C) 488///:uii R^iA BABU Petitionerin W.P.(C)4990/2011 PAWAN KUIMAR GUFTA AND ORS Petitioners mccma hfut Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5089/zuii ri iniYAa GUDDI Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5099/2011 paiu^H Petitionerin W.P.(C)5114/2011 DEV PASWAN Petitionerin W.p(Q 5115/2011 PANKAJ PANDEY Petitionerin W.P. Q 5117/2011 ^RTrsSEY^''"' pSSoreMnW.P.[§ CHANdTrP^ SINGH ..... Petitionerin W.P.CQ5144/2011 NARENDERKUl^AR 'n w"p1n 6799/2011 pZa"r'''^''° ™nrr'inW.P.S6824^2011 SAN3EEVAGGARWAL Petitionerin W.P.(g6825/2011 nZeNDER^KWAr'^'' ;;;;;pet!t'ionrrin w'.p'.(C)6827/2011 SmAR Petitionerin W.P.(C)6896/2011 W.P.(C)4347/2011and connectedmatters r 'V ASHA RANI MD. TAIYAB MEENA DEVI MOHAMMAD IKRAMUL HAK SURAJ KUMAR PRAKASH CHAND MEENA RAVINDER KUMAR BDENDER ASHWNI KAPOOR JAMIRUDDIN DIRENDER SINGH — SHYAM SUNDER RAJIV KUMAR MAHESH RAM KUMAR NAND LAL GUPTA SUSHIL KUMAR versus NDMC & ORS. Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner In Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Ppfit-innpr in Petitioner In Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) w.p.ro W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) W.P.(C) 6901/2011 6902/2011 6903/2011 6904/2011 6905/2011 6906/2011 6907/2011 6908/2011 6909/2011 6910/2011 ^917/2011 6919/2011 6920/2011 6921/2011 6922/2011 6932/2011 5420/2011 Respondents n Present; Mr. B. B. Sawiiney, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankan Suri, Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Mr. Ankur Suri and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh, Mr. Anand Shailani, Mr. Satlsh 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. Satlsh Chand Gupta, Mr. Pranesh, Mr. Sahil Kapoor, Ms. S. Fatima, Mr. Jagdeep Kr. Sharma, Ms. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Ruplnder 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 resporident/NDMC., Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel, Mr. Bhupesh Naruia, Mr. Sanjay Sahay, Ms. Farida Satarwala Chopra, Mr. Sachin Datta, Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar and Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocates for the respondent/GNCTD. ¥.P.{C) 4347/2011 and connected matters Ms Navratan Chaudhary, Mr. H.S. Sachdeva, Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr. Vikram Aggarwal and Mr. Shanq Mohammad,Advocatesfor the respondent/DelhiPolice. .CQRAM I^ON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

¶1Whether Reporters of Local 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? HIMIA iCOHLI. J. For detailedjudgment,see WP(C) No.4743/2011. The Registryis directedto place acopy of the judgmentpassed in WP(C) |Sio.4743/2(rrrmtms--frte: - (HIMA KOHLI) OCTOER 24^^ , 2011 JUDGE rkb W.P,(C)4347/2011 and connected matters \ >' H\1 COURT OF DELI-IT AT MEW DELI !•( eseIA/ e:d on '• .'IX.U.'^: ^ -1-Pronounced on: "IP.(X) 4743/ZO11 airtd 5Z54/_.2iLl-l=. IN THEri/^i'TER^QJ: SHIV NA\TH CHOUDHARY P.am DASS PeUtioner in W.P.(C) ^1743/:^' PeLi1:1oner in \A/.I^(C.) ver.sUs Ni::)MC-&. ORS. [•'(esponde.nLs 2601/31011 :Z60.2/2'!11-1^--— / /-JOll._4 559Zmi-l^lili2S!3A :^fi5r/Z0Il,^^464:9mil._4Z22/2mi^.-^^ SCiiSlf2«11,; "Vil IS7/2013.. 4775Z2Mlc-—4jL2lM01-4..- 5024^20iS02a/2011. 52JZ/,2jllJL• 525S.ii'.'2iri)1111 5261 / 201.1 /2 0.,1JLl. '52'77/ 'JOI,! .. 5292/20.11, 5403/:3'"o"n."n•" 54207ZQ11^-5§M./-2iLLLr. 5263/2011, J5317/20,11. i408;.({201.1,r 3052/2011, '4-65«./20iJ." 5M.'&/20.IL1, '4923./2011, ' 5257/2011,. 5204 / 2011,. 5402/20.tl,. 5410/2011,.. 5444/2011 .1,. 549B/20/111, .5I:j0./',/.20.!1. 5616/20:1. .IE. 5043/2011-, •571//201-1< '5732/20:L1, 57Gl/20.iL..ll,, 5797/2011,

5.92«/20:!.l, 595 7/2011, 5969/2011, ,61.01/2011, ' G115/20.il.l,. '5.12'y/20.il,l, 6250/,2011, 652e/.2011. 0533/2011, J.ILW'1/201.11,, '12/2011, •Ul/2im... mi L___gdg4/20ii, 5413'/ 201 1.• 54-18/ 2011, 5iL2.3./L2(QLl.,Lr....5 5405./201.1,._ 55iL5/2011,_. ^^7/.201.:lc... 5506/2«l;Ll.'-.. 547 - -1.:. S503/2011. g,.L20 /-2Jlil1. ^fiM.Z201,l 56%a/201I. 5627/2011, k: NQ4/2011,' 5645/_2 OJ.1_5G54.Z2Oil, j5/;MiZ.2oii.^_j:£Z2^ 57:12/2011, 5738/2g lit ?7ilM./L20il, 565C'7l201i.. 5729/2011r 5739/2011, ML5./.2ID1.:L... '563JI-72(yai,. 5711/2011.

573.1/2011,... 5743/_;^ll. . 57 8 5 / 2PJL1 .__J57iJjU.22Ull '^fli77'/2011. 5911/2011. 5918/2011._. q311 _5933/2011, &93fl/2011, 5935/ 2011 ^^i"5/70it; 596&/2011, 5967/2011. 59^1^^311,.. • T.ii7It'llf' 'I((•]! 'j ;l5; 974/ 20UL_1c__ G09G(2Oil,, 6100/ 2J.U)JL1... S"610B/2011, 6114/2QiA^..'0 6"iriL]j[7p 11, JG11_7'/2OIJL 6118/2011, 6119,/2Oil.'.----'' 6121/ 20il,'l«j:2^2im._J&l23 /2011. 6271/2011_i314ji/:,2!(ll 1,_".G5;;y!./L2 ' ©529,'12011^G5;fi7/2011,_.653i/jM ©^534/2011.1"_GI^38Z20JJ:^-_.GJ5J^/2011,.^5173/2011,

7.TI .J' . r 3189/2011. 319G/2011, .li:340/.20.JLl.. ''iK h"-!.p.(C) 47:'S3/'JlKi 1, 5,7iT4/;...!Oi.i ffl coniief:' Pi.l ninOer? f

(f)' -'if (Tl !) : 4343/2011 4352L/'2011 4344Zm!i^4MSiMJLl,_4349^1i i354/20ll,_435<5Z2aai^l3!a.a^^^^ 4361/2011^ 4362/:;011..^iaMaMU^-adb^:l^^j:j,- Wl. 1. 4371/ 2JJll^_.43Z2/_2mi^37 -• «75«Mi:r-13Z7i2!lM,_4^^^ Ton-VriT/'JO!!"! ^11^|'Q7/2Q11. 4393/2011. 4J95/_i-jIii-»— :E575HiZjmM201L_«99mil.--fL4Q0/^^^ •5w)TolT,:^10/2CM,__4ill2 . /701 -I . 4847/201lL_48^/^2^yj—48^ZiliUL— 1 1._5089 5129./.2011,_M3W_2im._JiM4ZiLiaiJL.^^^^ '• . r»fRfig/2011, 6e70Z_2tDLJJ.r__6684Z2J[KlJ.«—G7jai/AM-^^ «j5v/5on: 6896/7011 mu?ini. 1*2011 and 6932/2011. 1^res en I:: Mr. B. 13. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ani<an .>i Lalcshay Sawhney, l^'lr. Ankui Suri and l^'li - -'"i" Advocates Por the petitioners. Mir. Sumit Kurnar Singh, 1^'lr. Anand bliailani, l^ii _ Tripathi, Mlr't i\l.l<. Sahoo, I'^lr., R.l\l.Singh, Mr. II.K. .•-•hh.m, Ramesh K. Mishra, Mr.. Surender l^'andit,_Mr, N^|VM.)t Kunia , Mr: l^'lahendra Singh, P-^lr.SunderLai Juneja, Mi. i^init-'J, B-B Bhatia, Mr. IMavjot Kurnar and Mr. Satisl'i LtiaiuM'Hi.).1, Mr i--'ranesh,Mr. Sahli Kapoor, Ms. S. l--atih-ia, Mr. .lagdeor,Ki. Shai-rna, Ms. Rani ChhalDra,, Ms. Rupinder Kaur, M.s. lend.i Sataraw'ala, Mr. R.IM. Singh, Mr. Vikas Bcitrn, Mr.. \/.l'. I^nna and Mr. IMavjot Kurnar, Advocatesfor the petitioners. Mr. I ! Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Ms. Sidhi Arora, Mr. Vinod iu |v|r.Ai-jun l-'ant, Mr. Ashutosli Lohia and i^ir. Vinod \/\/adl)W,i, Advocates Por tiie respondent/NDMC. Mir. Majrni Waziri, Standing Counsel, Mr. Bhupesi'^ |\lnrul.a, Mi. Sanjay'Sahay, Mis. Farida SatarwalaCiiopra, IMr. Sar.liiu.l.JatIn, |v|r. AlDhirnai'iyuKumar ai'id l"^1s. i":iachna Saxei'ia, Advtu.ales Ini ti'ie resp0 nde nt/G NC1 D. , Ms. Mavratan Cl'taudhary, Mir. II.S Saclidova, l'- W-.P.(X:) 4743/2i}ilr 5254/20:1.1 a connected nwii.ers Rpjgf! J. (»f 7H Rajeshwar Rao, Mr. Vikrarv, Moharnrnacl,AdvocaCesfor the respondP.nl7lJe.lhi oil..... CO IRA [Ml . n-1101Ml'BILE IMISJIUSTICEHI HIA IICOII--IILI

¶1VVlieliherReportei's of Local papers niay be allowed to see the Judgment?

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

¶3Whether ttie judgrhent shoultl be reported in the Digest? ii-iririiViiA ilCOI}-«LI" 3-

¶1This common judgment shall dispose of the petitions ril(;d by Ihe petitioners/vendoi'sas the issues raised in l.he._-.e wiil. |-K-1'.' common. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.I'.(C) 4/^LV?"!I taken note of- • 2, The focus of the lengthy arguments addressed by both .M(Jes revolves around an order dated 15.07.2011passed by the Supn'.me(,ouil on some miscellaneousapplications riresented in W,,ll•^.(t.i) .11,((/99/.11.^:1' entitled Gaindi^ailLJLC^vs^J^M wftich matte, was d.^dded on 08.10,2010 by issuing exhaustive.direcbons. liefore piocceding b) deal with the respectiveargumentsaddressedby the learned e.uuirsoL'; (oi •the petitioners/vendors and the respondent/MIJMC, it woulrl lie "appropriateto set out the aforesaid order dated 15.0.7.201I,, whi(,h is Ihe bone of contention and is reproduced bereinbelow:- "l-leard learned counsel for tfie applicants and |,)ei"use(l the record. VI.Cf'.Ycyd74-3/201.tr r^2S4/2011 Si connedect n-islle-rs '• .iZ-l-'aye. ,"f t'f } : '• ...j-t Since•judgment ol' tlnis Court has so Pcir not jeen ii-nplernehted,inasinuch as appropriate leg.isiation lias not been enacted by the competent legislatui'e, we direct the parties to maintain the status quo as it is obtaihing today." •

¶3. It was the subitiissTon of' the learned couiisei^ ioi tin. respondent/MDMCthat the atoresaidorder issued by the Supieino C.oui t, "cBliing upon the paities to maintain stdtus quo as obtaining on

15.07 ZOll; can oiilyl^einterpretedto mean that the extensivec.lii.c..i..l.iui. issued eai-lier,on 08.10.2D10,in the case ot GaIndcL.PjJIL(miJra as (2010) lOi see 715 shall continue to remain in operation, hhJimIiiuj the adjudicatory mechanism provided tor by the NIDMC in the ...(Ji(.mc presented,by it bei^ore the Supreine Court and approved in tl ie said judgment; till the' appropriate government enacts a law tor rcguj,itiiK.| urban street hawkers and street vendors. 'It was. stated that simply •because the-iegislatui-ehas not^ehacteda law in this regard on or, beloie • 30.06.20il, as directed in the aforesaid judgment, it i...i:inni)t bt.. contendedby the petitidners/vendorsthat there exists a vacuum aiu.l the •said vaCuLiin can no longer be tilled up by Cbntihuing to regulale the vending activitiesin the NDMC jurisdictionin the rnannei as set out in the, a To i-e5a id j u d g m e n t.

¶4To give a brief background of the dispute, learned counsel Toi Ihe respondent/MDMCwalked this Court through sDiTie prominent c.lecisionsot l.i'ieSuprei'ne Court i'endered fi-om time to time, wtiicti relate to i-itaveiilent wr.p-,(CJ 474-3/2011r 5254/2011 ffi connected matters , > I ! i i :A" • K • - s / 'I I squatters/Hawkers,starting from the decision in the case ol budan, oil vs. NDMC :8lPi-5,.reported as (1998) 2 SCC 727, the interini order dnted

03.03.2006 -passed tiy . the Supreme Court in ¥%,?;.IP'..(C) KhQ'Hi/.11.^11'./ enUtled Fiiidhir Madan [k Ors.^s. M,CD, the final Judgment in tlie case nl c^ndhii-iv^adan fsuDi-al reported as (2009) ^17 SCC 597 and Jristly, tl,o judgmentdated 08:10.^'OlOpassed in the case oiVGaindLJlani.(su|:)ia).

5.. . I.eai-hed counsel for the respondenb/I^DMCvehementlyoprior;ed tlu; prayer of the petitioners/vendorsfor grant or interim-order? 'esi.i.-iininy ti-ie respondenl/IMDMCfrom removing therh from tfie sites occupied l)y. them till the enacti'-nent of an appropriate legislation:, in terms ni tlu-ciil^ectiohs issued by the Supi-eme Court in the, case of balndci ,Kan.i •(supra').•'She. paitlcLiiarly-referred to the ohsel-vations made i)y l.iio. : supreme Court in.paras 40 and 4,1 of the judgmentin the case of Sgdaji Sirrg.h_ ,(s,y|;),j:a,),, which dealt-with the immediate eviction of unaiithoiizoiI squattei-s/liawkersand laid emphasison the fact that in die said c.a;.,o, Iho Supreme Court had directed removal of uhautl'iorizedsquatters/hi.ivvkei withoui: awaiting,final allotmentof sites to be allottedto elicjibleclaimant,', at the piaces recommended by tlie Thareja Committee or suygestod liy the NfJiHC.

¶6/Again, in tlie interim order dated 03.03.200G |:)assed in .Sudlii,!; Madan/s case fsLlPi'a), the follo\A/ilig observation rnacJe by the :.;npii-!nlo Couit was-highlighted by-the counsel for l:he respondeniyMDMC: • rc) 4743/2011, •5254/2011 & c.onnecl:ed rnslters Ftrye .'j' oT .Z.ff ; .7 "While we undertake this exfeixise, we diiec.t the-A\uthoril:ie5 to see to it that those persons, who aie •carrying on hawl<ing activities or who are squatting on public land without any authority, even iii accordancc with the present day scheme in force, are removed forthwith. This inckides nnauttiorized hawking, squatting on public streets, footpaths and public |,iail<s, including playground.We direct tl'ie Delhi Adrnmrstrntion to take steps immediately in collaborationwith MDMC with necessary assistance from Dell.ii l-'olice to clear the roads, streets, footpaths, park's etc, l)y unaUttiorized occu|3ants/squatters/fiawkers." 7, As to the judgment dated ;l.7.05.2007 rendered in the case ul Sydhjj:..Mac!jin.lsu|or^ miuch emphasis was laid by the counsel loi the respondent/NDMC on paras 28 to 30 and 35, which arc ieprodu(:(M.I liereinbelow for ready reference "28. The New Delhi Municipal Committee has aLso sLibniittedits Scheme. We have considered the Scheme subrhitted before us. The area which falls undei' l\IDM(. does not create problems such as those in tlie area;, under MCD. However, in ttie said Scheme reference lias been made to persons who. do not fiave permission un dei' Section 22.b or licence under Section of ixiDMC /Act, 1994 but who ai'e unauthoiisedly conl.in.nii to carry on business as liawkers/street vendors. have been described as those wfio are "tolerated" •NDMC area. We fail" to understand why any persm violates the law should be tolerated. Eitlier ttiey s be compelled to obey the law or the iaw may be su amended, if it "is found to create undue |-iardshi|:i. 1he problems need to be addressed by the legislature or' the ruleiTiakin'g authority. We, therefore, observe that if it is felt tfiat the persons wfio fall in tl'iis category leciuire special protection, the /Act may' be suitably ameiidell to cover their cases or else.ttie number of sucli illegal squatters may increase from time to time. 1e '•V who ta L)ly V\!.P.(C) 4743/201.1, 5254/2011 & connected matters Page. 0 <2U • • 29-There has been no serious objecLion l".o l:lie .":;chcnie submitted by IMDMC which is a coniprel'iensive schenK:-.. Certain directions have, however, been sought Poi" Iroin this Court. We approve the Scl"ierne subinitteiJ Ijy l\ID|V|C."

¶30li: is submitted before us that the Sctiemes wlti(::li have beein approved .b'y this Court must be sul:)jecl: to any Act or rules that may be framed in consonance vwitli the IMational Policy oh Urban Street Vendois. Jt goes without saying that we liave approved the Scliemes as rramecl by MCD and IMDMC. .IT the legislature intervenes and' fraiTies anotUer schema oi' regulations govemiiig sucl'i Schemes, that will cei'tainly su|;jersede tl'ie Schemes prepared by MCD and NDMC. It is well settled thiat any administrative action is always subject to law ;. that I'nay be trarned by the competent legislature.

35.- Subject to the aforesaid modiPications/ctianqos in the Schemes submitted -by MCD ai'id NDMC, the sanie are approved. The said authol'ities stiall now take appropriate steps to implement the Scheme Poitliwith. In case ol" any dipriculty Paced by ttien'i in implementing the schenies, tPiey shall tiave the liberty to apply to l.l'iis Court."

¶8Lastly, in the i"ecent judgment in U'le case oP Gajnda, Kani (supi;a), learned counsel Por the respondent/NDMC speciPically relied upon pni-a;-; '30, 3?., 50 to 66-to state that tlie Supreme Court was cunst:iou.s nl tin.! Pact tPiat a structured regulation and legislation is urgently i-ec|uiiod lo control and regulate tlie fundamental rigPit oP hawking. She also poinled out that the three tier disputes I'edressal mechanism set out in Ihe aPPidaVit Piled by the then Chairperson oP the MIDMIC was Lal<en. nol.c. oP by I 'tiie Supreme Couil" in para 72 oPthe aPoresaid judgment and in paia 7'!, il was tlien observed as beloVv;- V\I.P.{C) 4-743/2011, 5254/201X 8). connected maiJ.ers Pai/e 7 of 20 , I '73. In paragraph 12 of the'aFndavil; it has been stated that there shall be an Appellate Authority attend to the redressal of grievances ot squatters, hawkers, traders, residents or any other persoi-i by hearing appeals against the decision of the Vending Committee (Main), i^ai'agraph 12 oP ttiat afi'idavit is ?el. out below There shall be an Appellate /Authority. On l.he forwarding of petitions received l.iy the.! Chaii'person, this /\utliority sliall attend lo redressal of grievances of squatters, hawkerr,, 'traders, residents or any other person. Ihn •/Authority shall also hear appeals against Ihe decision of Vending Cornrhittee

(Main). IJecrsions of this /Authority unless challenged betore a l-iigh(;i Forum or in any Conipetent Court, stiall be linal. Ttiis Autfioiity sliall be initially fieaded by a i^eison appointed by tfie Chairperson having at least \ i) years legal or judicial background-There can be more than one men'iber in tfiis /ALitliority."

¶9After Iriaking the aforesaid observations, in paras /4 lo /L> ol judgment, the Supreme Court went on to observe as below-;- "74. In the said affidavit, wtiich was affirmed l;)ef(iie this Court on 24^'' August, 2010 it has been stated that IXlDMIC sfiall comply with tl'ie orders wfiich would l)e 'passed by ttie adjudicatory mechanism conternfjlated in tlie scheme and which has been appr'oved by this (..:oi.iil for-the NDMC area, unless such orders are made snljjecl matter of cl'iallenge before a higher forum or in nny other competent Court.

¶75In view of such schemes,' ttie hawkeis, sqi.iatteis and vendors must abide by' the Dispute l"(edr'essal scfierne mentioned above. Thei-e should not be any direct approach to this Court by way of fresfi petit.ioi'i oi I/As, bypassing ttie I3ispute fledi^essal Mechanism provided in the sctierhe.' Mi'.P^CC) 4^743/2011, 5-2S4/2011 ft coiureciecf matters Pfjye. i't vf 23 y -S- ) I f

¶76However, bePore 30''' June, 2011, l:he approiiiriale Government is to enac:t a law on the basis oP tlie 1311! n"ientiohecl above, or on the basis oP ahy arneneiinent thereof so that the hawicers may precisely know the contouts of their rights."

¶10It was thus sought to be contended on behalP • ol I.he '• .respohdent/MDMCthat there can be ho vacuum as far as regulation oP trade Of sti'eSt hawkers/vendors in the MDMC jurisdiction is concernei.lnni.l the .failure on the part of the legislature to abide by the tiri'iclinese.t o.ul: by the Supreme Court in the case of Gainda P^arn (-5"upr.ciL putting in place a'statute on or befPre 30.06.2011, cannot be interpreted l.)y the petitioners/vendors to n'lean that ttiey can continue tlieii' liade unhindered at ahy place of their choice in the IMDMC jurisdiction, in an, unregulated'imaniier and without any obstruction or olyection lioni Ihe • MlDMC. • . • • • 11. Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC palticuiarly ieiei red l,o " paras 74 -and 75 of tfi(3 aforesaid judgment to state that thie disi'iute redressal scheine, noticed by the Supreme Court in pai a 7b was l.he one tl'iat' was legally functioning in MDMC jurisdiction aiid whicli wa.s tal<eii note Of by the Court in the preceding para 74. In othe.r words, she sl.ated that tine scheme as set out in the aPPidavit dated 24.00.20J.O, Pilerl by the , then Chairperson of MDMC before tlie Supreme Court in Gajjida Kam's case,.^_(supj:a)_,was the one which was finally approved by the Siipi ornc Court. She furtiier subiriitted that assuming; withoi..it.admitting, Ijtat thr.-; W.P.(C} 4y43/-2011, S25y-f/20il S connecl.ed iual.ters P'aife 9 of' 7B dispute redressalscheme set out by the NDMC had lapsed on I. I, • •s claimed by the petitioners,then the IMDMC Act provides an adeMoate Pallback to ensure orderly management oP vendors in tlie area, reference was made in this regard to the inrovisionscontained in ion.. 221, 224, 225 and 226 of the said /Act.

¶12It was further argued by the counsel for the iespondent/N!.)M( Hi,it the applicationfiled by the IMDMC before the Supreme Court in .Inly 20 11 pi-aying inter alia for extension of time to regulate tiawkers/si|uatlei s in ttie NDMC area, as per the scfierne iTientionedin ttie judgmentin CidiiuJu l--^am's ca.se (supral, till the enactment of a law by the legislature in Ihat regard, had not yet been finally disposed of by the Suprenie L.ouit at the time of passing of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011 and similaily, the other application filed by one of the hawkers/vendoi'Spraying inlc.i alia foi-restraining the respondent/MDMCfrom granting lehbaian I'lghts to the winnei-s of theducky draw of lots for allotment, which was to In-held on

12.05.2011;^ or any date thereafter, was also pem.ling consideration before the Supreme Court. Hence, no linality coul(.l he attached to the order dated

15.7.2011 which can only be considoied an interim measure'till the final .disposal of the aforesaid applications ni^ tlie enactment of a legislation.

¶13On merits, learned counsel foi' the respondent/l\li3MC relerrod to tlu! affidavit dated

01.08.2011 filed by tfie Directoi" (Enforcement), NiiMC, W.P.(C) 4-74-3/2011, 5254/2011 &. connected inal.teis P'aije HI' Iff '••'•'t -•! 1 • ' .3 , wherein it was stated that Rursuant to the public notice issued by the. •1\IDMC ihviting^ applications uhdei" the MDMC Url^an Street Vendintj Scheme in thfe 'yeai: 2007, the respondenk/IMDMC had received 'I.;i0/ applicati.cjhs.the documents required by the applicants tor registration /under,the SchelTve included a prooT ot age, documentary prout/nNidavit for the purpose of'ahhuaM.ncome,proof oP residence, proof msnpp'oil.of •••special cabegdries like handicapped,Kashmiri migrants etc. and proof ul squatting in the NDMC area, if any. In para 4 of the aforesaid adidavit, the followihg criteria approved/adoptedby the Vending Lon-imllleo to ^ shortlist the eligible applicants is set out;-,"4: That the criteria apiJioved/adopted by tlie Vend Cornnnittee to shortlist the eligible applicani.s is a.s under;-

(i) The applicants strotilcl be resident of Delhi, witti his name registered in electoral rolls as per ai".)stract nl photd iE-Roiror EKO certificate- (•ii) Tlie applicantshould be a major; viz. witli over I.", years of age as per valid birtl'i certificate or age certificate or school Gertificate etc.

(Hi) /The applicant should be a needy as per-ir i^ecotcis of 1>C (Revenue) or as vulnerability records of Government of MCT of Delhi (Samajik Suvidha .Sangam; Vulnerable and most vulnerable categoi'y)- '(iv) The apTjiicaht slioUld be i-egistered as pei" Ml,'Mr. Street Vendoi's Scheme. The policy verification of the applicant shoUfd be available.

(v) The' applicant or his dependent family member' should not be employed or should not fiave any othr;i tehbazari/yending or any other birsiness premises in t)elhi as per record verification of l\lii)MC/MCD. MAr.C'C)4743/2013.,'5254/2011 & connected matters Pau'B ,1X c'f 2r( , I (\/i) Preference will be. given to applicants who are pliysicaily handicapped or widows or senior cil.i^ons above years -or Kaslirniri migranl.s oi" SL./h> I (necessary cerl:ifical:e to be subinitted and relaxation may be given in the above criteria)."

¶14As per the respondent/NDMC, the category-wise list oT eligit)lo shortlisted applicants in terms of the aforesaid cMteri.a totalled lo applicants. The affidavit dated

01.08.2011 states that ,l.he respondenii/MDMChas identified 183. new spaces, in addition to the .?().! remainingspaces identifiedby the Thareja Committeein the IxnoMf.. nrea, which were available' for allotment, lihus taking tlie total numbei ol availablespaces to 386. It was furtherstated ttiat due to factors lil'.e dc! listing of the l^arliament.Street on security grounds, constiucl.iun nl flyovers ancf-HetroStationsat vaiioLis locations in the IMDNL jm isdic'tion, the number of authorized.te/-;bazar/squatters has changed from .i'lfV to 404 in number. The number of applicants, who the respondenl:/NI)M(. claims, are vending Linauthorisedlyat Connaught l-'lace, Sarojini l\l.ig..ii. Parliament Street and Janpath areas and in whose, favour, slain:-.' quo orders are operating, is stated to be'323 in number. Ihe alfidavil.asseil.s that simply because the names of the petitioners,who are registeioiJwilh the ML")MC, figure in the eligibility list drawn by the respurulenl./l\lt)M( cannot be treated as proof of their regularly vending in ttie MDMt. area . and nor does it confer on them any enforceable vested iight Ld ensure a vending space for them in the MDMC area, whicl'i is directly depf-indenl.on M/.RCC; 4-7-fS3/2011, 5254/2011 a cortnecCed rnslters '•'acje .1.2 .2t.t •: \ • /• I ' • the number of spaces available. Thus, it was contended that neither tlui possessionof any number of challans, nor the, absence ttiereof can mnke a difrerence, for the reasdn that challans cannot Torln the basis for Ihe •petitioners to claim ahy vested legal right l:o squat at a given spat.e.

¶15Coilhseh for the i-esbondent/NDMC asserted that the pie.,v.ent petitions are not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners have on equally .efficacious• alteimate ' remedy of approaching the •rip|)ollnte authority ti;)nstituted by, the Chairperson, MDMC, for redressal ol then grievances and fatlul-g oh their part to have approached the Vci Committee is hot on account oP the Fact that tlie Said Committee ii' the appellate auttiority is not functioning, but because they liave Ic ,rnore'convenient to bypass the aforesaid forum and approach this l.ouil; dil-ectly; \A/hich is not permissible. She stated that extensive measuicys have been taken by the respondei;it/ND|viCto. constitute tlie adjudicatoiy mechan'isiii by way of a three tiei' system in the rollowirvg manner:-

1.' Vending Sub-Comi'nittee (Site of Spaces),

¶2Veriding Sub-Committee (Meatli and Hygiene) and ,j. Vending Sub^Committee (EnroiT:en'ient).

¶16She stated that the creation oi" the aforesaid three Vending '.)Ul.)-CoiTimittees, Vending Cornifiittee (M.ain), as also,of tfie a|:.)pellate autlioriiy .Vvhicl'i was Goh.stituted to redre.ss the grievances of tlie si|uatl(;r.';, Iiawkei's, ti'aclers, residents of any other' person against the decision (if V\/.P.(C) 474.3/2011, 52S4/2011 a conneCt'exl maiters Page 13 of :/.ll ) I [ ' ' I :! J I the Vending ConimiKee(Main), was placed bePore Uie Supienie L.ouil. Ini considerationarid tlie said U'lree tier adjudicatory rnechanisni was duly approA/'edin the judgmsnt of Gciinda P.an"i (supi'a).-

¶17Pei- ' contra, lealTied counsels Tor the petitioners/venduis, who appeared'on different dates, vehemently opposed the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent/NDMCahd asserted that the scheme lloated hy the respohdent/NDl^lCfor regulating vending activities in its Jurisdid.ion had,lapsedon 30.06.2011in the absence of the enactrneiitof a legislation as per directionsof the Supreme Court in the case of Gimida.KajlL and'as on date, there is no;schernein existence, it was cal'ivn.ssedllml the implication of the afoi^es'aid order of status c/uo passed hy the SupremeCourt on 15.07.2011can only.meanthat irrespectiveof the fact whether the 'squatting is legal or illegal, tfie same be permil.led to continue; dh ah 'as is whei'e is' basiS; and such stdtus quo is to he .maintained by all the parties.till a law is framed by, the legislature. IS. Mr. B.B.. Sawhney^ Sr. Advocate appearing loi' Ihe petitioners/vendorssubmittedthat in the case of Gaincla_RcLt!.l...(.s_upLa,),LI""' Supreme Coul-t had directed that tlie appropriate government must enrn.l adaw oh or before 30.05.2011 so that tfie fiawkers rnay pi'ecisely Icnow the contours of their rights, fience the dispute redressal mechrini;:m provided for in the scheme mentioned in tfie aforesaid judgment ciould operate oniy Upto 30.06.2011 and thereafter, tlie said sclie.nu! would m.P.(C) 474^/201 5254/2011 a connecied matters Pat;© 14 of' I . automaticallystand iajDsed. He stated that no other interpreteitioncan .)« given to the-Drdei"dated 15.07.2011,directingmaintenanceo? dUo, in view oP the qualifyingwords, "as it is obtainingtoday". He argued thnl' •ip the schehie was continuing to operate, as claimed by the lr,tjine(J counsel foi-the respondent/IMDMC,then there was no good rea.son for-the respondent/NDMCto have refrained from holding a draw of lols, wlm.h was slated for the same day, i.e., :15.07.2011,and that fact of the nialtei' is that even the respondent/NDMChad understood [.Yve. ,si.oLi.ih qun i)id(..i to meah that thei'e is'no'scheme In.place after 30.6.2011, lor tlie rea.sou that in i3ai-a 68 of the 'afoi-esaid judgment in the case of GaintUL KaUi £sui3raj, all tfie writ petitionsand the interim applicationsfiled before the SupremeCoUl't were disposed of with clear and specificdirectionsHint the problem of hawking .and street,vending coUld be regulated by the •schemes framed by the NDMC ahd MCD only upto 30.06.20.1:1 and nol thereafter. It was a5.sel-ted on behalf of the petitioners/vendoi s tl ial .i;. on date, the dii'-eCtions of the Supreme Court tfiat status qua rs lo Lic! n-iaintainedby the parties can only be given one interpretation,whii li i.'i. ttiat till a law Is ultimately enacted by the Parlian'ieht,irrespective dI Ihc^ii legal status, ail the 'petitione.rs/vendoi-swould be permitted to ci squatting/hawking at-the sites that I'lave been occupied by tliern.

¶19• Insofar as the coiinpdsition of the dispute redressal mechani;. concerned,• -learned .Sehibr A\dvocate for i;fre petitionei'S s tted th; contrar-y to the understanding of the respondeniyiMDMC, the .scliei W.P..CCJ 47-43/261X, 5254/2011 a connecLed niaf.-fers I'ftiie :!5 vf .'/H . ! i i V, I/ I reproducedat paras 72 and 73 in tine judgmentih tire cose ol'Gajivdn/jVain (sugra), was not tiie one which was actually recognized by ttie .' .i ii.irenle Court, and rather it is the dispute redressal scheme merjtioned in pnrn 7'.. or the aforesaid judgi-nent i.e., 'a scheme for urban street ventloi-s ioi , NDMC area as formulated in the year ,20Q5, which was ultinintely • approved by the Supreme Court on 17.05.2007, in the case ol .judliit Madan (suip.i'a);! which is-the schenie wtiich finds mention speciiifnllyin the following para 74 and is the one approved by the Supreme Cnurl. II was contended that even otherwise, the National Capital Territory ot t)ellii Laws (Speciial ProA/isions) Act, 2011 (hereinartei"referred to as \'S||,)>eir:ii:.il PirovisiioiiiisAclf)-comes to' the rescue oP the petitioners Por the lensoii that sub-clause. (2) oP Section 3 oP tlie Special Provisions Act mondntos maintenance oP status quo as on

01.01.2006, notwithsi.andiny any judgment,-decree or order of any court, in respect of encroachment oi unautPiorlzed development. Thus, it was submitted on behalP oI Ihe petitioners/vendors that they were entitled to grant oP intei irn I'jrolccl ion • till tPie enactn'ient of a legislation to regulate ha.wksing/vending nctivilies in urban streets in 13elhi on the basis oP the National Policy on •UrI.iari Sti r-'f'.l. Vendors^ 2009 framed oh 17.06.2009 and the Special Provisions Ai;l:.

¶20VVith rePerence to the Special Pi'ovisions A>ct, leained .'•icnii Advocate Por tlie petitioners stated that the phrase, "unaul.l kiri/ed developinent" used in the dePinition clause has to be seen in Ihe .'-.nnie context as tPie one in which the phrase "encrotichhient" has been dePine.d, W.P.(C) '^743/2011, 525^/2011 ft conrtect:ed maHiers F'nye .Of <rl' \ I • ! i . i ! . I ,5; wherein it is mentioned that putting up oP temporary, semi-teiiipoi aiy or permanentsti-ucture for residential use or commercial•use or any ol.hci use,- and tine placementof goods on the pavements iDy tfie petit.K)iicr5r^-; liable to Idg'termedas unauthorizedUse for maintainingstatus c|uo undpii the Special Provisions Act. Much emphasis was laid on l.lie ave.i-mcnl,s rnade by. the respondent/IMDMCin its interin-i application filed bol\iie l.hn SupremeCourt in Gaincia Ram's case (supra),in July 2011, to sul.)mitlhat the respondent/NDlviCitself had stated in the said application-that Uie. scheme had lapsed and therefore, the only interpretationthat (::an bo , given to, the status quo order passed by tlie Su|:)remo (..ouit on

15.07'.20:1.1 can be tiiat no scheme would exist after jiO.OC.'.2(.)I.1 and thus, the behefitof the Special ProvisionsAct ought to be extended tu tiir, petil:ioners. He submitted that the phrase 'street vendors' has lieo.n clearly defined under the National Policy on Urban Street Vendois, 200'.). Reliance was placed iii the case of Patri Vvapar Mandaj..P-glLU(-('•.GyO-) vs. MCD Town' l-lali Ors. reported as (2009) 12 SCC 475 and the provisionsof the Spiecial ProvisionsAvCt to submit tfiat even l.he ...ii.ipi(".inc Courl:' had recognized the fact that the Special Provisions Act' i:,: tlli-^ only Central law governing the field and it would'have primacy ovei oilier StatLites and administi'aiiive ordei's. It is thus stated that the provisiunr; of the iMDi^'IC AvCt cannot be invoked by tlie respondent/MDMCJ as the. '.aid /Act is not in consonance with Article 96 of the Constitution (.)f .India and . furtlierrnore, ^tfie Special Provisions /Act being valid till tlie em I oi' W.P'.(CJ 47'43/20X1, S2S4/2011 It, cannecled maKers Pane :S 7 ol' 2n ! 7;" I • ' I December'2011,no orders in derogationoP die provisionsof Uie said Acl. can be passed: • 21. l^ir: • S.l<: Tripathi, /Advocate appearing for-some of lU'ie petitionei-s/vendorssouglnl; to en-ibellisli tl'ie subn'iissionsoP |\1r..Sn\A/lincy, 'Sr./-\dvDcate and relied on the orders passed in W,.P..(C) :lL449/i'.(l.i)ll entitled Mnhd Tsnnail vs. NDMC 8^ Ors... to urge that tlio ~V-\r.po.Iii:ite. Authoril:y" constituted tinder-the dispute redressal mechanir-ini Inr the NDMC area/has not been functioning,which fact I'le .staled is borne oul froin a perusal oP the oi'der dated 08.03.20:L;l' passed in the nfnrr^said case, wherein the Court took notice oP the clailn oP the petitioner/vcMklui •therein-to the ePPect that ihspite of orders passed by tlie Appellate ALitliority aliovving squatting at a particularsite, till a Pinal deterniin.ili by the Vending Conirnitteeas to-his eligibility,the respondent/IMI^Mt. r the police were 'disturbing his activities. In ttie aPoresaid order, the stateiTient of the, counsel Por the respondeniyNDP-'lCwas recurdei.l l.o Ihe effect that the appellate authority, whose order was being relied upon by the petitioner therein, was constituted initiallyPor ttie MCiD aieas and Inlor started Punctioning Por the IMDMC areas as well Por tPie reason that at l.hni. time,-there was no separate.appellate authority Por the NDML areas, but subsequently; in accoi'dance With the sctierne approved by tlie 'iupreine Court, ttie' Chairperson,. IXiDMC had constituted a separate a|;)|.)ollnln authority Por • the NDMC areas. "I'l'ierePore, the appellate aulhority appointed eaUiei' liad ceased to liave jurisdiction qua tlie NDMC arcn;., II W/.P.fC) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 a connecled lUBUers Paae .L(f of 28 -;a J I ^A/as lihus contencled oh behalf of the petitioners/vendorstl'ial Ihn aforesaid'di'tlerclearly indicatesthat the appellateaiitfiorit.ymthe Ml..'Ml. areas is not functioning. 22-iXeliance was also placed on tfie n'linutes of the ineeting ol tlu. \/ending Committeedated 11.03.2010,to claim that if the fact of whethei there was actual squatting/vendingwas verified by the Comniitteo nn<.l H the names of the petitioners/vendorsfigured in the eligibilitylist i,)i ej)-iied by the respdndent/NDMCfor holding the draw of loLs, then it did nnl lie in the mouth of the respondent/NDMCto claim that the petitioners,who had • been verified'and found to be eligible, were not entitled to sguat at various sites in the IMDMC area after 30.06.2011.

¶23In rebuttal', counsel for the respondent/NDMC disunited l.fu.i contentions of the petitioners/vendorsand while reiterating fier earlior submissions, asserted that the petitioners did not have any legally enforceable right, created on the basis of the eligibility li.st (.Irnwn l.iy "MDMC, foi-claiming,grant of interin-i orders iii their favoui'. .She again referred to paras 68, 69; 75, 76 and 78 of the judgment'in tfie t.n.-.e. nf Gainda .Rciin (supra), to emphasize that when the afore.said para:-, arc read collectively, it is clear that the petitioners caiinot (.:laini an entitlement' to any interim orders as sougtit by them in the pie.':;o.nt proceedings. .She furti'ier stated that even ottierwise, Ifie .Special Provisions •Act relied upon by the petitioners' lias duly recogiii/ed the. y\[.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254-/20il S, connected ihatters i. y ir/" /r\ >- schemes prepared by the local authorities in tlie National Capil.al ro.irilory of"' Delhi for regulation oP urban street vendors. To substantiate Ihe snid submission, she drew the attention of ttiis C.ourt to tlie preamble dT Uie afoi-esaid Act, whicti mentions ttie fact that all ttie schemes iJioi.tared by the local authorities in the National Capital "I'erritory of Ijelhi, lui regulation of urban street vendors in accoi'dance with the National I'olh.y on Ui"ban Street Vendors, 2009 and the Master Plan toi" Delhi x'O.'I , havf., been implemented and Turther that more time is lequired l(.)r pioper iiTiplementation oP the schemes regarding inawkers and uit)an sl.iei'.l vendors. 24- /-\ speciPic rePerence was made by tlie learned counsel lor IIki respondent/NDMCto Section 2(l)(c) oP tlie Special ProvisionsAct, which dePines the phrase "encroachment" to claim that it does not cover petitioners herein, who are squatters. Further rePerence was niade to provision oP Section 3 oP the Special Provisions /-\ct, wliich conlain'; r obstante clause, to state that status quo with regard l.o tl ie enci oai.lhikm li 01' unautPiorized development as on 01.01.2006, mentioned in Ihr: .'.aid provision, was in . the context oP the dePii'iition ol' tlio phin::.i\'; "enci'oacl"irnent" and "unautPiorized development" .set out in Ihe dr'linilion clairse at Sections 2(l)(c) and 2(l)(i) respectively oP IPie .Spot iai Provisions Act and tPius, the petitioners/vendors did not quality under tin"! aforesaid enactment Poi" clain'iing protection as none oP tlie ingi ediei il,'. ;.;r!l out in the provisions oP the aPoi'esaid enactment are Pound to exi,'-,t in Iheii V\f.F^(C) ^7^-3/20J.a^ S25-'l/20XS. 8i co/Tnecfei./ /rr0/.f'e/"s -M*/ • "1 • ' •I case. II: was submitted that the Special Provisions Act, which en ePPect in the year'2007 and has been extended trom time to time rind lastly^ till December 2011, does not give permission to per'sons lo le slnrt any activity once they have been removed by the civic nulliority and similarly, the Scheme oP 2009 does not entitle the registrants l.o :i(|ual unless they have been allotted a speciPicsite. In sLipport oP tl ie nloi csaid sLibn-iissibn, reliance was place on the judgment in ttie case (il MLL) vs. Gurriam.._Kaui: reported as (1989) 1 SCC 101. For the pur|.iose ni' interpretingthe meaning of the phrase, "structure",rePereni:.ewas made to th(2 juclgitient oP the Supreme Court in the case ol MuniLijjLil rm-pni-Ri-inn oP Greater Bombay Bl Ors. vs. Indimi-OiLCgi'ljoratigiiLtd. reported as AIlR 1991 SC 686. For the purpose oP understandiru.)the •expression,'status quo', rePerencewas made to the judgiTientin the iuse oP Messrs BharnP rokinci Coal Limited vs. Stat^jiLBjhajijk^Qrs.i'ep"i' J '"i--' 19S7 (Suipip) SCC 394'to submit that in ordinary legal conn(.)tation,thc^ term 'status c/uo'implies'theexistingstate oP things at any given point nl time.

¶25• /-\s POi" the National Policy on Urban .Street Vendoi^s-, counsel hn the respondent/NDMCstated that both, the 2004 policy and the 2(.)0'.-.) i..'olii.y, •Pind mention in the decision of the Supreme Court in ttie case oi uaiiidci PIam rsupra) and it was only aPter taking into consiclei'ation the 'inid policies; did the Court directed the institutibnalizabon oP uibaii vending through legislation. It was further stated tliat at the lime ol wr.p.fc) 4-'743/2bll, 5254/2011 connecCeii hiBllers Fsge. 21 of 2>.f . .1 X. , "I : delivering the judgment dated 8.10.2010, tlie Supreme Court took. niiii(i^ of the l\iCT of Delhi Laws (Special l^r.ovisions) /-\ct, 2009, whicii was valid • upto 30.12.20:1.0, apart from noticing tfie Model Street VeuiIdis '• (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) l-.>ill, ^M)0') introduced by the Government of India, Miriisti'y of l-lou5ing (A IJil.u'm Poverty Alleviation.She stated that notfiing i-iew is now tieing suhmilleiJ by the petitioi'iei's/vendorsherein, for tlie present petilii)n;, to bo entertainedfor any purpose-whcitsoeverand all the grievancesraised l.iy the petitiohers can easily be • addressed before tlie Vending CorniTiittee/appellateauthority under the scheme relal:ing to urban Mi eel. vending in the MDMC area, which fora continueto remain functionnl,even after 30.6.2011.

¶26Tl'iis Court has heard these matters at length since l/.fL20l 1., nn differeril dates. Various counsels for the petitioners/vendors.nul the. ^.Standii'ig Counsel for tfie respondent/NDMChad dd'Jier.j.cd l.ht.. t.ouil. .Their respective arguments have been taken note of. Botir side.s have made sti'enUous efforts to explain what the status quo uidei d.ited • 15.7.2011 passed by tfie Supreme Court in the, case oi &ain.dd Ra.ni.(sypi:a)implies.. The leitmotifo? the arguments addressei.lon behall of the petitioners/vendorsis that the status quo order read willi tin-'. .qualifying.words, "as it is obtainingtoday", suffixed to the order, can only be read to imply that as on date, i.e., 15.7.20:1.1, there was no sr:hemr> operationalin the NDMC areas to regulatevending activitiesand till a law i I Vt/.F.(CJ 47^l3/2:0Xlr 5254/2011 Si COnrie.cted in filters Page 22 <.rf 7ff & ' •' V .! , ) is ultimatelyenacted by the legislature,all the petitioners,irrespectiveof their legal status, can continue squatting/hawkingat differentsites that have been occupied by them. It is also assertedthat in the teeth of the status quo orders passed by the SupremeCourt, the respondent/MDMCin collusion with the police authorities,is threateningto illegallyremove the petitioners/vendorsfrom different sites, which is detrimental, adveise, harassing and belligerentto those, who have been found eligible by the respondent/NDMCfor being allotted specific tehbazarispaces within the NDMC jurisdiction,but are being threateneddue to lack of further action in this regard which is pending at the end of the respondent/NDMC. The second limb of submissions made by the learned counsels foi the petitioners/vendorswas that the Special ProvisionsAct would additionally -come to the rescO.e' of the •petitioners/vendol^s, which also requires maintenance of status quo as existing on 01.10.2006, till the end of December, 2011. . 27. On the other hand, the main thrust of the arguments addressed by the counsel' for the resj3ondent/NDMCwas that as the legislature has failed to enact ah appropriate legislation in terms of the decision of the . Supreme Court in the case of Gainda RamCsupra),the subsequentorder dated 15.7.2011 directing parties to maintain the status quo as" it is obtaining on .the said date can only imply that the state of affairs as existing on date are not to be-disturbed,until the rights of the paities can be finally determined through legislation. It was submitted that while ' » W.Pr(C)4743/2011, 5254/2011 &connected matters I i , t I passing the status quo order on .15.07.2011, the Supreme CornI was conscious of the fact that the Pcirliament had yet to enncl .1 •.comprehensive iegislatioin to regulate urban street vending and in surh circumstances, it goes without saying that it was the intent of l.he <-onrt that the entire dispute redressal mechanism as recognizedmHie case oi GaL!Kl:a_EcLniCsui;M:alwould c|)ntinLie to remain in operaUon, so as m regulate the urban street v.ending ih.the MIDMC area, till the legislalion in tl'iat regard is enacted. Further, it was stressed that the ..pc(.ial ProvisionsAct did not provide any protectiveumbrella to tl.e petition.ms, whose squatting activities neither fell under the "encroachment",nor under "unauthorizeddevelopment". Jt wa; asserted that •even otherwise pending an appropriate legisi MDMC /-\ct wa.y availableas a fall back option and tlie relevani;provisions • ii-i ];ho said enacthientwould coiitinueto regulatestreetveTiding nclivity m the MI3MC ai-ea and the petitioners/vendorscould not claim a vostod lujhl. I to squat at any site of their own.

28.. Frohi the above; it •is apparent that arguments and ce)nntci argumentshave been raised by botfi sides on ttieir respective,voisions of the meaning and the effect of the status quo order datei.l t:r./.2()J.I pas,sed by the Supren-ie"Court. It is also very a|jparent, that the meaning sought to be attributed by both sides as to the implication ol the .'Mud status quo order, is dian'ietricallyopposed t.o each otl'ier. Not only thi:;, both sides are at a tangei'it on the factum of tlie pendency or otlTerwi;;ool Wf.P.(Cjlyi7'43/20Xl^ 525/1/20X1 & connected ni3l:l:ers Fpge. 2'! t>i' the interim applications filed iDefore the Supreme Court t.)y I'olh, llm applicants/vendorsand the respondent/NDMC,tor clai'irication;..,on wliii.li the aPoresaid order came to •Ije passed as it i^ 'he otdu respondent/IMDI^lCthat the aforesaid applications were not disposed ol while passing the order dated 15.7.2011. The parties aie poles np.iil on .the question of import ot the sl:atus'quo order, and the edei t o( Ihe observations made by the Supreme Court in the case oC CqiiRk. RamfsuDl-a)as regards the approval of NDMC scheme. 1hey arc also nl loggerheads on the cohnposition of the adjudicatory mechanism in Ihe IMIDI^'IC lurisdictionand the manner oP its functioning,as also the identily of ttie scheiTie which is validly operatingin the NDMC areas foi legulatiiuj urban street vending, which had all been subject mattei ot eon .idci.il.ii before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The other issues agitated by the parties, starting Prom the interpretationoP Hie. various observationsmade by the Supreme Court in the aPoresaid iudgmiMtl,.l,o the Pormulation oP the scheme as approved by the Supreme (..-ouit in the case oP SudPiir Madan (supra), to the composition oP the di;;puUv. redres.sal mechanism and its validity as also ttie ineaniiig ol" Ihe '-.l.ilus quo order, are all in a turmoil as both llie parties have stonily (.lefoiided' their respectivestands wtiich .are completelyat variance wil.h (-lai.h olhe.i. The only .coiTiiTion ground shared by the paii;ies is the Pactum of |)n';:.iiui oP the recent judgment dated 08.10.2010 In ttie case ol Cuiiida • lTarn(supri:.0and the subsequent status quo order dated .1 S. 7.20.1 .1 pas-.sed mf.P.(C) /IJAS/'IOll, 5254/201.1 ft coVrirecf.ec^ mailers fnyfi irT