Lala Ram v. Ndmc and Ors

judgment. . • - .

4.- To give a brieP background oP the dis.p'ute, learned cbtmsel for the respondent/MDMC walked this Court through some prominent decisions ol' t.Pie Supreme Court rendered Prom time to tiirne, whicti relate to-|.:irivei . W.F.(CJ 4.743/201X, SZ54/20XX &connecled rnalters , ' ,, Paye 4 of 2ft- ^squatLers/hawkers,slarting rrorri the decision in the case. oT Sodg,'n Iviiiyl' vs..,'NDMC.,.&Oi;s,; repoited as (1998) 2 SCC 727, the interim oi der dnted

03.03.2006 -passed, by the Supreme Count in 1(599/19S.> pnlilled .Si.idhir Madan Ors. vs. MCD, the final judtjnient in l:he. cn.so u( •Sudhir Madan fsupra) reported as (2009) 17 SCC S97 and .lastly, the judgment dated 08.10.2-010 passed in the case-oP 5, Learned counsel for tl'ie respondent/MQMCveheniently oppuscMl l.lu-^; prayer oF the petitioners/vendorsToi' grant of interim orders resl.inininy the respondent/NDiviCfrom removing them from tlie sites occi.i|iied hy them till the enactment oT an appropriate legislation, in tei ms nl i.lu.. directions issued .by the Supreme Court ih the. case ot C.ai.iicU! jyj.-'.l (supra). She particulai:ly rePerred to the observations made by thr! Supreme Court in paras 40 and '-11 oP the ;]l!dgn'ientin tlie cq.se oP .Sodajj. Sin:q.,h .(sup.ra.)., which dealt with tPie immediate eviction oP (.inautlloii/,ed squatters/hawkersand laid emphasison the Pact tliat in the said case, tlie Supreme-.Court had directed ren-ioval oP un,authorizedsquatteis/hawkeis without awaiting Pinal •^Notrnent oP sites to be allotted to eligibleclaim;int.'; " at the places recommended by ttie Thareje) Cornn-iitteeor suggested by the NPJMC. '

¶6Again, in the interim order dated 03.03.2006. passed i.n .Sydliii Madan;s case fsupra), the Pollowing observation made by the .Siiprenle Court was Piighlighted by-the counsel Por the, respondent/NDMC;- • {C) 4743/2011, 5254/20X1 a connected rnaLterj Faye 5 u-r 2-'t- "While we undertake, this exfercise, we direct • Authorities to see to it that those persons, who are •carrying on hawl<ing activities or. who are squat.ting on pulDlic land without,aiiy authority, even in accordan(..e with the present >day scheme in force, .are removed Torttiwith. This includes unauthorized - tiawkiny, •squatting on public streets, Pootpaths and-publicpai'ks, • including pla.ygi'ound:We direct tine-Delhi/-\drnii'iisti'ati(.)n to take steps immediately in collaboration with ML.t) and NDMC with necessary assistance Prom Deltii Police to •clear roads,, streets, -Pootpaths, parks etc.' by unauthorized occupants/squatter^/hawkers."

¶7/As to the j-udgmH-nt dated :17.O5.ZO07.i"en'dei'ed in •the 'c.ase ol .SU.dh!i.\.Maxian._.C5J-il2ra},,much emphasis was, bid by tlie counsel For tlie respondent/NDMC on paras 28 to 30 and .35, wliich arc iepniduced liereinbelow for ready rePerence;- ... Zo The New Delhi Municipal Con-imittee has also subn'iitted its Scheme. We have considered the Scheme submitted bePore us. Ttie area whicli PaNs under l\IDN(... does iiot create pi'oblen-is such as those in ttie ai'ea.s' under MCD, However, in tiie said Scheme rePerencc hn.^; been made to 'persons who dp not have permission under Section 22.5 or licence under Section J30 oP the NDMC Act, 1994 but who are uiiauthorisedly contiDUlny to carry on business as tiawkers/street vendors. Ihey have been described as those who are "tolerated" in the •NDMC area'. We Pail'to understand why any person wlio violates the law should be tolei'ated. Eitliei-they,should be compelled to obey.ttie law or'the.law may be si.iitably amiended, iP it is Pound to creat,e undue hardshi|:). Ihe problerns need to be addressed by the legislature or the rulen'iaking authority. We, thenePore, observe that IP 11 is Pelt that the pei'sons wtio Pall in tPiis category lequire special pi'otection, tPie /Act may be s,uitably an'iended l.o cover their cases or else nuniber oP such illegal squatters may increase Pi on'i tiirie. to time. Wf.P.(C) 4-74-3/2011, 5254-/2011 & connecled mailers Page, (f '.'f 2H.

¶29Thei-e has been no serious objecLion l:o Uie Sci'ieine submitted by.JMDl^lC which is a comprehensive scheme. Certain directions have, liowever, been sought Por from this Coui't. We approve the Sciiernd'' submitted by IMDMC. ' • . • .

¶30It is subh'iitted bePore us th:at l:lie Schemes wliic.li have been approved by this CoCirt must be sal:jject to any Act oi' i"ules that may be framed ii'i consonance v\/il.li IMational Policy on Urban Street. Vendors. U: goe.'ii wnthout saying'tlnat-we have approved the Scliemcs a.^^ ^ pramed by MOD and IMDMC. IP the legislature intervenes and' frames another' scheme oi" regulations governing such • Schemes, that will certainly su|:)ersede ^tl'ie Schen-ies prepared by MCD and l>JDMC. It is-well setlletl ttiat any administrative action is-always subject tu law :• that may be framed by the competent legislature.

¶35Subject to the aPoresaid niodiPications/ctiangcs in the Schemes submitted -by MCD and NDMC, tl'ie sai'i'ie are approved. The said auti'idrities sl'iall now take appropriate steps to ih'ipien'ientthe Scheine Poi'tl'iwith. In case oP any diPPiculty faced by theiri in irnplen'ienting the schemes, tfiey shall Piave the liberty to apply to.tl'iis Court."

¶8Lastly, in the recent judgment in tl'ie case oP GdjiidaJiai]!.isupra), ! I learned counsel for the resporiderit/NDMCspeciPica-lly relied upon paias • 30, 3?., 50 to 66 to state that the Supreme Court was conscious oP Li'io . ^ fact that a structured •regulation and legislation is urgei-itly ret.iuiicd lu control and regulate the fundamental right of hawking. Slie al'so riointed I out that' the, three tier disputes •redressal mecPianism set out in j.he I • affidavit Piled by the then Chairpei'soii oP tfie NDMC was taken, nc.il.e. ol by i the Supreme Court in "para 72 oPthe aPoi-esaid judgment and in paia

7.1', it was then observed as bePoW:- 'm.P.(C) 4.743/20i.l, 5254/20X1 connBcS.ed itigUers Ffige 7 of IXi "73. In paragraph 12 oT the'aPPiclavifit, has been sl.:al;erl thai: there shall be an /Appellate;/Authority which sliall attend to redressai of grievances oP squatters, hawkers, traders^ residents or ^ny other person by hearing appeals against the decision oF the Vending Committee (Main). Paragraph 12 oP tPiat.aPPidavit is set out below There shall be an Appellate /-\.uttioiity. On t.lje Porwarding .oP petitions received by tl)e Chairperson, this /Xuthodty sliall attei'id lo redressai oP grievances oP squatters, Piawkers, traders, residents or any ottier person. Ilie Authority shall also hear appeals against Ihe decision'oP Vending Comri'iittee (Main). Decisions bP this Authority unless challenged bePoi'e a Pligher •IToruni or in any Competent Court, sliall be (inal. •Ttiis Authority sPiall be initially headed by a peison appointed by the Chairperson having, at least .10 years'legal or judicial bacl<ground. "Pliere can lie more than one n'ien-iber in ttiis ALithoi'ity."

¶9•• After making the. aPoresaid observatio^ns,.inparas 74 to ./(.> ol the judgnient,the SupremeCourt went on to observe as below-:- "74. In the said-aPPidavit, which was aPPirmed l.:iePore this Court on, 24^'' August, 201D"it has been stated that NDMC shall comply with the orders wliich woLild be passed by the adjudicatorymechanisi'ncontemplatedin the scheme and' which has been approved by this Couit for the NDMC area, unless such orders ai'e n'lade sul.rjec.l:. matter of challenge before a" higher fornm or ii.i any other competent Court.

¶75In view of such scliemes,' tlie hawkers, sqi-iat.tei's and vendors must abide by .the Dispute l^edressal scheme mentioned above. Thei'e should not be. any direct approach to tfiis Court by way of fresh petiliion en. . .IA\s, bypassing thev Dispute l-ledressal Media provided in the schen"ie. W.P.(C}- •^•743/2011, 5254/20X1 ISi co/tnecCed mall:ers t/l' IB ,. / •

¶76l-lowever, bePore 30'"'' June,. 2011',''Uie cippi'0|>rial.e Government is to .enact a law on the •,basis-oP tiie Bill mentioned above.,or oil tl'ie basis oP any amendment tliereoP so that the hawkers n"iay precisely know t.he contours of their rights."

¶10It vyas thus sought to be contended on. belialP •• oi .the respondent/NDMC that there can be no vacuum as Par ,as legulatioh oP trade oP street'hawkers/vendors in the I\II3MG jurisdiction i's concei;ilei.l and the failure on tPie part oP the legislature to abide by the tinieline set out by tPie Supreme Court in the case oP Gainda Pvam fsupr'a), by ,|nil:ling in-place a statute on or bePore 30.06.2011, cannot be interpreted by the petit'ioners/vendoi's to 'mean that they can continue their ti ade • unhindered-at any place oP their cPtoice in ,the NDMC juri.'iidicl.ioij, in an unregulated mannei" and without ar)y obstruction or objection liom the • NDMC. - . , • .

¶11Learned counsel for the respondent/IMDIHC partici.ilaiiy I'ePeiieil to . paras lA and oP tPie aPoresaid Judgment to state that (Jis|)ute redressal scheme, noticed by the Supreme Couil ii;i pai'a 7S' .was the one ttiat was legally Punctioning in NDI'^IC 'iurisdiction and whicl'i was taken note oP by the Court in the preceding para 7,4. In other words, siie .stated that the sizheme as sebout in the aPPidavit dated 24.08.20.1.0, Piled by l.iie i - . then Chairperson oP IMDMC before the S'Lipi'erne Court in Gajnda j^aiirs case,..(supra), was the .one wliicti was Pinaljly appi'oved by the Supierne-Court. Sl'ie Purther subitiitted that assuming, without adniitting, that l:he -4~43/30y::l.,

57.S4./2011 & connecl:ed nrslters Pairs ii.ff .7H / ! dispute redressal scheme set out by the NIDMC tiad-,lapsed od JO.I. I, .. as claimed by the petiti.oners, then the NDNG Act provides an adetiuate fallback.to ensure orderly rnanagehient oF vendors in the area.. .Specilic rei^erence was made in this regard to the prqvisions contaiiied ii'i bcclions : 221, 224, 225 and ,226 oP the said Act. . , . i

¶12It was further argued by ttie counsel for the respondeiit/.NI.-^Mi..that I, 'the application filed by tfie NDMC befoi'e ttie Supreme Couit in_ .luly .^0 I I. .praying inter alia foi" extension'of tinie to regulate liawkei's/sqi.iatteis in ttie NDMC area, as per the scheine mentioned in tlie judgment in .Gaiiida Ram's case (supral, till the enactment of a law by the legislature in that regard, had not yet.been finally disposed ofiby tire Supreme Couit at the. time of passing o-flhe stal-us quo order dated 15.07.2011 and similarly^, the other application filed by.^. one of the hawkers/vendors praying inlei • alia for restraining the respondent/MDMCfi'om granting lehbazari rights to the, winners of the'' lucky draw of lots fcH" allotment, which was to he. held on

12.05.2011 • or any date, thereafte.r, was also pending consideration -before the Supreme Court, Hence, no linality could be attached'to the order dated" 15.7.2011 which can only be consideied an iriteiii'n measure tlN the final disposal of the aforesaid applicatipirs ui" the " enactment of a legislation. , • ' -

¶13On meiits, learned counsel for the re-spohdeiit/NDMCreleired l:o .l.he afhdavit dated

01.08.2011 filed by the Difector (.Enforcement), Nt'MC;, : • • • . • J/V.P.fc; 4743/2011, '.S2S4/2011 Sr. connected n]at.ters Page AO wherein it was stated that pursuant to the'public notice issued by tlio MDMC inviting•applications under the' l\li:)MG Urban Stieet Vending Scheme in ,'the year .2007, the respondent/MDMC I'lad received 'l.'b'/ applications.The docunlents required by the applicants for legistiation under the Schen-ie included a .proof of age,: documentary pixiol/aflidavit for the. purpose of^annual income, proof of riesidence,'proof in suppoil. of special categorieslike handicapped,Kashmiiri nVigrants etc. and proof ol squatting in the "iMbj^C area, if ai'iy. In para 4of d-ie aforesaid affidavit, the following criteria approved/adoptedby the Vending Commiltee to shortlist the, eligiJile applicants is set out;- • "4. That the criteria appioved/aldopted by the Vendinc) Committee to shortlist eliigible applicants is a.s under;- • - , , (i) The applicants should be resident of Delln. witli his name registered in-electoral rolls as per abstract ol photo E-fioII or ERO certificate.

(ii) Tfie applicantshould be a ifiajor, viz, witfi over IM years of age as per valid b.irth'. certificate oi" age certificate or school certificate etc.

(iii) Tfie applicant should be a, needy as! per records of iDC (Revenue) or as ,vulnerability rccord.s of Government of NCT of Delhi (Sa,majik Suvidha .Sarigoin: vulnerable and most vulnerable category).

(iv) The aPI";Ileant should be registered as per NfiML Street Vendors Scheme. The policy verification of tl.ie applicant should be available.

(v) The applicant or his dependent family meinlicr should not be employed or sIiquIcI not fiave any oth(::i •tehbazari/yending or any other business pie.mlses in rjelhi as per record verification o,f NDMC/MCD. W.P.(C)4743/2011/5254/ZOlT St. connecfiednisLters ' Pit.ge .1.1. o/ ..U-f . r.. I

(vi) Preference will be. given to-'•pplicants who-are 'physically handicapped or widows oi" senior ciU^'ens above

¶60years .• or Kashmiri migrants or SC/b I (necessary cerliificate to be submitted and relaxation may be given in the above criteria)." ;L4. As per-the respondent/IMDMC, the category-wise list of ejigible shortlisted applicants in terms of the aforesaid criteria•totalled to. 71:'. applicants. The affidavit dated

01..G8.2011 states' tiiat the. respondent/NDMChas identified 183 new spaces, in; addition to i.he 2() '! remainingspaces identifiedby the Thareja Committee in the l\lt)ML nrea, which were available for allotment, thus taking the total niimbei oi availablespaces to 386..' -It was furtherstated that due to factors like de-listing of the Parliament Street on security grounds, consliruci.ion ol flyovers and'/MetroStations at various locatiions in the NDMC Jurisdiction, the number of authorized .te/'z/jazar/squatters has changed from 3-I.".- to 404 in nuiTiber. The number of applicants^ who the respondent/i\lt)ML claiiTis, are vending unauthorisedlyat Conhaught Place, Sarojini N>.igai, Pai'liarnent Street and Janpath areas and in wl'iose. favour, slot.u::' quo orders are operating, is stated to be-323 in nuniber. The affidavitasserts that simply because the'names of ttie petitioners, who are registeied wilh the NDMC, figure in the eligibility list drawn by tlie res|."iondenl./Nt)l">^l(.., cannot be treated as proof of their regularly vending in tlie NDMC area and nor does it corifer on theni any enforceable vested ligtit to ensure a vending space for ttiern in the IMDMC area, whicfi is directly dependent r)n m]p.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/20J.1 Si c(:'nnecl:ed msnens . ffige. 12 2(t Ltie number of spacers,available. Tfius, if. was coiilei'idedUial neilhor l.lu:! possessionof ai'iy number of challans, nor tfie absence tfiereof can mnla; 'a difference, for tl'ie reason tfiat challans cannol; form l.he basis hn-Ihe pel:ii:ioners to claim any vested legal right to squat at a given space. ;15. Counsel for responderit/NDI^C asserted that ttie piesent - petitions are not maintainable' inasi"nuch as the r)etil:ioneis have an equally efficacious alternate remedy of approaching ttie. npiiellnte authority constituted by the Chairperson, MDMC, for redressal ol their grievances and failure on ttieir pait to have apiDi'oached the Vending Committee is not on account of the fact tliat the said Committee in(,.lui.ling the appellate autl'iority is not functioning, but because they l)ave Ion rnoi'e convenient to bypass the aforesaid forurn and approach

1.1 li: ! . , . I directly, which is not-permissible. She stated tliat extensive moa.sui(^.s tiave been taker) by the respondent/NDMC to constitute ttie arljudicatoi y mechanism by way of a three tier system in the following manner: -

¶1Vending Sub-Committee (Site of Spaces), 2-Vending Sub-Comrnittee (I'leath and hlygiene) .and .3. Vending Sub-Committee (Enforcenient).

¶16She stated that ttie ci"eation of ttie aforesaid three Vending Sub-Committees, Vending Committee (M.ain), as also'of tlie ap|."jellate aiilhoi ily whicli was coi'iStituted to redress grievances of l.lie stjual.l (M '-;, ) hawkei's, traders, residents o.r any other pei'son against the dei.i.',,iilu of W.P'.fC)4.7^13/2011,525^.f/20Xl» crn'.necCec//trafCe/s FBge. 13 of 2.U-the Vending Comn-iiliCee(IMain), was placed ijePore i:he Supreine Courl. Tor consideration and the said three tier adjudicatory mechanisin. was duly Rpi'irnypd in the jiidciiTient of Gainda P.arn-fsuipra). 11: Per contra, learned counsels for tlje iiietitioners/vendors, who appeared on difrerent.dates, vehemently Opposed the aforesaid starn.l ' • ' taken by the respondent/ND|viGand asserted that the sclierne floalecJ hy the respondent/NDMG Tor regulating vendin.g activities in its jurisdicitioii had lapsed on 30-06.2011 in the absence oT the enactirient of a legislation as per directions of the Supren^ieGourt in.ttie case of GMlcLa.Kaill.(sUIJ^^^^^^ and as on date, ttiere is no'scheme in exisiij'eitce.'It was canvassed l.liat the, implication of the ' aforesaid ordei" ofj stat'us quo passed hy l:he Supreme Gourt on 15.07.2011 can only, mean that irrespective of l.lic fact wtiether squatting is legal or illegal,; tfie same be peni.iil.l.ed l.o • • ' • i continue' on an 'as is' where is' basis, and sLich stdtus qui) is .l.o he n'laii-itainecl by all the parties.till a law is framed by the legislatui'e.

¶18Mr, B.B.. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate apiDeaiing loi' petitioners/vendors subriiitted tl")at in Lhe case of Gainda Psari'i (supLci), the "Suprenne Gourt had directed that tfie app'ropriate government musl. enact a law on or before 30.06.2011 so ttiat tlie^ hawkers may pi'ecisely kncn/v contours of their lights, fience dispute I'edr'essal mecllani.sni provided Tor in the scheme •mentioned in'Llie aforesaid judynienl. ciould operate only upto

30.06,201:1.' and thereafter, tlie said scliemc^ woi.ild W.P.(C}/-17^3/2011, 525^1/1.0:11 ft coniiecl.ed nratlers Fftge 14-or :/.<H automaticallystand lapsed. He stated that nt other interpretalJoncan ^ I-given to the.orderdated' 15.07.2011,directingmaintenanceoP ste/;(./:vquo, '• in view or the qualifyingwords, "as it is obtainingtoday". He argued that if, the schehie was continuing to operate,las .claimed by the k.aineiJ i counsel for the respondent/NDMC,then there was no good reason for the respondent/MDMCto have refrained from holding a draw of lols, which• ^ -was slated for the same day, i.e., 15.07.2011,and that fact of the n,alter i is that even the respoiKlent/NDMChad understood the sLoliis quo order I to mean that there is no scheme in.place after•30.6.2011, for tlie reason S ' ' tl)at in para 68 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Gainda^Kani ; Csugra}, all the writ petitionsand.the interinn applicationsfiled fiefore the, ^. SupremeCourt were disposed of with clear a;nd specificdirection.sIhat the ; problem 'of hawking and street vending .could be regulaterl. by the • -schemes framed by the MDMC ahd MCD only upto .30.06.20.1:1.and nut • thereafter. It wa.s a55erted on behalf of the petitioners/veiidois that .is on dateV the directions of the Supreme Court that sIbIajs quo is lo be ! maintained by the parties can only be given one in.terpretai.ion,which i.s ; that till a law is ultimately enacted by the l-Jarliament,irrespective ol Mk^Ii legal status, all the petitioners/vendorswo,uld..be permitted to continue ; ' squatting/hawking at.the sites that have been occupied by tl-ten:i. • ! - • i .. • ' j . ^ . i .19. Insofar as the composition of the .dispute i'edressal mechniii.Mii i.s • ; concerned, learned .Senior Advocate for the pe.titioners subniilted thai ! contrary to tfie understanding of the respohdei"it./NDMC:, the .scilieme W.tK(C) 47-43/2011,

5.754/2011 & c(jiynecl.ed malters • ' ' rayeXS vf'JB . reproclucedat paras 11 and 73 in the judgment iri the case ot Ggiiida Kajn (supra), was not the one wiiich was actually: I'eGognized by the i|.)renle : Court, and rather it is the dispute redi'essal scheh-ve meiitioned i.n para 7.'j i oF'the aforesaid judgment i.e.,'": a scheme l;or Lirban street ven.dois ;• MDMC area as formulated in the year .2p06, .vA/hich was ultimately- • approved by the Supreme Court-on 17.05.2007, in the case of .'judlijr ; Mciclap (supra)., which is the scheme vvtiicti iPinds mention speciiit nlly in the following para 74 and is the one approved by the .Supreme Ciuirt. LI,. • i was contended that even otherwise, the National Capital Territory ot t)elhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 (hereinaftei' reterred to as 'Speciiaill : Provisiions Acll:')- comes to ttie rescue of the petitioner's for the reason-J that sub-clause

(2) ot Section 3 of ttie Special' Provisions Act manrlates • maintenance of status quo as on

01.01;2006, notwithstandiny any j judgment,'decree or order of any court, in respect oP encroachment Cji- : unauttiorized development-Ttius, it v-vas submitied on behalt nt Ihe • petitioners'/vendoi's that they v\/ere entitled L;o grant of interim prolcclion - till ttie enactn'ientof a legislationto regulateihawkJf.ig/veridingactivitiesin ;• urbai'i streets in Delhi on the basis ot the Naitional Policy oii Urban .Streel • : Vendors, "2009 framed on 17.06.2009. and the Special F^rovisi^onsAct.. : ' 20. With reference to ttie Special Provisions /Act, learned y-ieniui •' /Advocate tor petitioners stated that phrase, "unaul.liui'i/.ed i development" used in ttie definition clause has to be seen'in Ihe .••;anie : context as ttie one in which the phi ase "enci-oachrnent." iias been defined, W.P.(C) 47^33/20 J. .t,

¶3conrtecf.ef/ ni3{l:ers: Page Iff of 2!:t J I wherein it is mentionedthat puttinci up oP temporary, semi-teinporsnyor permanent•structure Tor residential use or Goirirnercialuse or any other use; and the placementof goods on the pavements by the petilJonersrs liable to be termed as unauthorizeduse Tor mairitainiiigstatus quo nridei the Special Provisions./-\ct. i^luch emphasis was laid'on tlie averments made by the respondent/NDMCMnits interinn applicatior) Piled before the SupremeCourt in Gainda-RanVscase (supra);inJuly 2011, to sui.imittiiat the respondent/NDMCitselP h,ad stated in the said application tliot the scheme had lapsed and therefore, the only interpretationthat can bo, given to "the ' status 'quo order passed d:)y tl.i.e Supreme (...ourt on 15'.07.2011 can be' th.at no scheme would; exist after 30.0t.i.2(.).1I and thus, the benePitoP the Special ProvisionsAct ought to be extended to the pei:itioners. He submitted that the phrase ^street vendors' has been clearly defined under the National Policy on'Urban Sti'eetVendors, ZOO'J. Reliance was placed in the case of Patri Vyapar ManM.X^MIli"(Kcy-O-.)..vs, •Mrn Town Hall 8^. Oi'S. reported as (2009) 12 SCC 475 and l.lie proyi'sionsoP the Special Provisions/Act to submit that even the Supicine Court had;recognizedthe Pact that the Spetial Provisions /Act is the only Central law., g.overning the Pield and it would have primacy over oli.ier Statutes and administrative orders. It is thus" stated that the prcivisiuns oP the MDM'C /Act cannot be invoked by tlie respondent/NDML. as tl'ie said /Act is not in consonance'with /-Vrticle 96 of tlie'Constitution ol' .Inrlin iind Purthermoi'e, ' tP)e Special Provisions /Act being' valid till tlie end i.)P r/\r.P,(CJ ^743/20.tXr 5254/2-.011 S cc»r/uecf;e<y/nsffers Page :!7 of ./.ft December2011; no orders in derogalion oP the provisionsoP Uie sr^iid" Act can be passed'.

¶21l^r. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate appearing Por .some oP . |tlre petitioners/vendorssought to embellish the submissions oP Mr.,SDwhncy,. Sr.Advocate and relied dn the oi'ders passed in ¥\\r,.P.:(Cj 1449/20.11 entitled Mohd'. Ismail vs'. NDMC Ors. tp urge tPiat tPie "Aiipo.llate Authority" constituted under'the dispute redressal mechanism Por the NPJMC area, has hot been Punctioning, whiclii Pact lie stated is boiiie oui Prom a perusal oP the order dated 08.03.2011 passed in tPie nP(>re..sai;d case, wherein the Court took notice oP the claim oP the petitioner/voni.loi-. therein-to tH'e ePPect that inspite oP oiders passed by tl)e Appellate Autl'iority allowing squatting at-a particulai' site, till a Pinal detenriinntioii by the Vending Committee as to-his eligibiliijy,the i"espondeniyNI.''M(...and the police were 'disturbing his activities. In the .aPoresaid. oixlt-.M', the sixitement oP the counsel .Por .the respondenit/ivlDiyiC.-was recoi de(.l to Ihe ePPect that the appellate authority, whose order was being relied up(.)n l.iy the petitioner therein, was constituted initialljy Por ti'ie MCD areas and later started Punctioning, Por tlie MDMC areas as well for the r'eason l;h;;it r,il that time, there was no separate-.appellate autlicjrity Por the NDMC aieas, l.)ut subsequently, in accordance with the scherhe approved by tl)e .'vupreirie Court, ttie Chairperson,. IMDMC tiad consLOtuted a separate apr.iellaie' • 'i" authority Por •the NDMC ' areas. I'PierePqre, appellate ai.ii.li()iity appointed earlier had ceased-to liave jurisdic:tion qu-d the NDMC aroo.s. II W.p:(CJ4743/3011, 5:'J:54-/3011B, cann.scf.edmanersf " Page Hf of 28 •• •< was Lhu5 co^ntended on behair of th.e p:etition.ers/\/endois l.l'ial l;lic " aPoresaid order clearly indicatesthat the applellateautlionty iii tlie l\il.)MC. •i areas is not Functioning. • ' ' : ;

¶22Reliance was also placed on the n'li.nutes-bP the meeting oP Uio i • Veiklinq Committeedated 11.03.2010,to claim thafiP the Pact oP whetlier there wa.'s actual squatting/vending was verified iDy tlie Committee;nntJ li the names oP ttie pistitioners/.vendorsPigui'ed in tlie eligibilitylist |.).i i-.'.pr'iie(I ; by the respondent/NDric".Poi" holding the dravy oP loLs, then it dioJ not he in the mouth oP the respondent/NDMCto claiui that the petitioner.9,.wPioiiad ! been verified and Pound to be eligible,' were not entitled to .S(|i.iat at various sites in i;he-NDMC area after 30.06.2(]111. • , .

¶23In rebuttal, counsel for respondent/NDMC disputed i..lie contentions oP the petitioners/vendors and':while.R eiterating tier earlier i submissions, asserted that' the petitioners did not have any legally j enPgrceabie right, created on the -basis oP, the eligibility list drawn by : I\IDIVIC, Por claiming, grant oP interiiri orders-;in. tlieir Pavour. ,Slie again rePerred'to paras 68, 59, 75, ••75 and 78 oP, the ju'dgment• in tlie i.,a.'.e uf •i Gainda Ram fsupra"), to emptiasize tliat.when the aPoresaid paia.s are read collectively, it is • clear tl'iat petitioners cannot cJaini an entitlement to any interim orders as sougl'it by them iri tl ie fn e-S'eiit proceedings. She further", stated that even ,otl"ierwise, ttie .Spec.ial Provisions /Act relied upon by petitioners-has duly recogni>:ed ' ^ €3:':. W,P.(4-/43/2.QX.1, S2S^f-/2Vi 1 & conne.cf.'efi lU^ll.erS] l-'ijLFie'19 of 'IH ,-,1 • • schemes prepared by the-local a'uthoritiesin Ithe Mational Capital leirilury of" Delhi for regulation oT iirban street vendtjrs. •'To suljstantiate the saicj submission, she drew the attention of th.is Court-to the prean)ble of the aforesaid VAct, which mentions the fact that all tine'schemes-prepni ed hy the local authorities in the National .Capjital Territory of Ijelhi, tor \ . regulation of urban street'vendors'in accordance-witl i the Nciti(.)ilal I'olicy on LJ'rban Street Vendors, 2009 and the Master i^'lan Tor DeNii "l{)2 \ ,• have been implennented and Tuitlier that more 'time is required tor prtiper implemeritation of ttie schemes regai"ding' hawkers and ur tinri street vendors. • • ' , '

2.4. /-\ specific reference was made by leairned counsel,, fui' ttie. i respondent/NDMC to Section 2(;l.)(c) of the Special Provisions Act, which defines phrase "encroachment" to claJnh that it does not cover petitioners herein, who, are squatters. Further reference was matle to the provision,of Section 3 of the Special ProvisiO|ns Act, yvtiicl) coi'itains a non obstante clause, to state that sCafus quo witlii i"egard l;o ttie encronctimenl: or unauthorized development, as on 01.01.2006, mentioned in ijie said provision, was in , the. context of definition of I.I')G |,)lira.se.':-; "encroachment" and "unautfiorized developrnent" set out in the definil.iwn-clai.ise at-Sections 2(l)(c) and 2(l)(i) respectively, of ttie .S|)ecial Provisions Act and thus, the petitioners/vend,ors-did not qualify ui'idoi' tl)e afoiesaid enactmerit for claiming protection as none of the ingredients .set out in the piovisions of the aforesaid enactrhent are foui'id to exi.':,t ii'i l.lieir ^743/20X1,52S4/2011ffi conne,jteilnrafCers^ ' "" raye 20 uf 2U / • Cdse. It was submitted thot the. Special Provisions Act, which came i I • effect in the year -2007 and has been extended froni tin'ie to time; and lastly, till December 201-1, does i)ot give perjrtissioii l:o persons l(.) if:• si arl: any activity once they tiave been removed by the civic aLill)0iil:y and similarly, the Scl'ieme of 2009 does not enjtitle the I'egistrants l:n s-.(|iiat unless they have been allotted a specific sitd. In support of tlie alViiesaid submission, reliance was place on tlie judg(Tien:t in tl')e case of MCD ys, Gurn am Ka.ur reported, as (1989) SCC; 101. For tlie iJi.ir|.)ose' of .interpretii)g. the meaning of-the phrase, "structure", reference was made to the judgment of the .Supreme Courl| in^ the case of MuniLijj.a.l ' Corporation of Greater Bombay 8(. Ors. vs. Indian Oil Corporatidn Lttl,. i reported as AllR IS)®!'SC 636. l-or the'ipurpose of understandiiig the expression, 'status quo', reference was rnadb to tlie judgment in the ca.se of-Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. State-of Bihar'oc Ors. re|.iorlcd as 1987 (Supp). see. 394 to submit that in ordinary legal connotation, term 'sL-atus quo' iiriplies'the existing state Qf ttiings at any given [loini; of tiine.

¶25As; for the National. Policy on Urban Street Vendor's, counsel Irir I,he respondent/NDMC stated that both, the 20014 policy aiid the 2000 policy,, find mention in the decision of the Supreirie .Court in tlie case of Gain..dci E-911! Csupra) and it was oniy aftei" taking into consideration .said policies," did Court dii'ected tlie institutionalization of uii)an .':;l ino! • vending-through legislation. It was furtliei;' stated that at the lime of W.P.(CJ^743/2011^ 5254/2011 &connected /rfafiVers Pnge 21 of delivering tlie judgment dated-8.10.2.010, (tie Suprenne Court took nnl.ice of the NCT or Delhi Lav/vs (Special i^rovisiohs) Act, 2009, which wa? valid upl;o

30.12-2010, apart from rioLicing tl'ie •Model Street Vendors (Protection-oT Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) .Bill, 20U'..-) introduced by Government' oi' India, l^flinistry ol' I'lousing IM Hi ban • Poverty Alleviation. She stated thiat riottiing; new is now ijeing si..il.)mitted by petitfoners/venddrs tierein, Tor present petition;-: l.o Ijp' entertained Tor any purpose-whatsoever and all the grievanccis laised by petitioners can easily' be • addre.sse.d before tiie ..Vending Coi"niTiittee/appellate authority under the schenie relating to urbnn slieet vending iri the NDi^C area, which Pora con'tirjue to [-eiriaiii Puiiction^it,even aPter 30.6.2011. ..

¶26Tl'iis.Court has heai'd ttiese matters at length since 1"Z.f.i.20U.", (.hi diPPerent"dates. Various counsels Par the, petitioners/vendois and tlic •Standing Counsel Por tlie respondent/.MDMChad addressed the (..oiiil,. ^ Their respective argui'nents ha've been taken note-oP. l3oti)'5ide.s liave made strenuous ePPorts to explain what :the status quo oirler dal.ecJ

15.7.2011 passed by .tPie •• Supreme Court in case oP cainda Ram(supra) implies. The leitmotif of the airgurnents^ addressed on l.iehalP oP the petitioners/vendors is that the stajtus quo, order read wifti l.Pie qualiPying .words, "as it is obtaining today"., suPPixed to the order', can only be read to imply that as on date,.i.e.,

15.7.2011, tliere was rn.). scheme operational in the MDMC areas to regulate vending activil.ies and.I.ill a law W.p. (C) 4.743/2011, 5254/2011 S, conneci:i-d nisltBys ' " Fags 22 in is ultimately enacted by the legislature, all the petitioners, irrespective of their legal status,'can continue squatting/ha;wking at different sites that have been occupied by them. It is also asserte|j that in the teeth-of the status quo orders passed by the Supreme Co,urt, the respondent/NDMC in collusion with the police authorities, is'threat;ening to illegally remove the petitioners/vendors from different sites, whjch is detrimental, adverse, harassing and belligerent.to those, who I'^avg been found eligible by the • respondent/NDMC for being allotted specffic: tehbazari spaces within the NDMC jurisdiction, but are being threatened jdue to lack of furljher action in this regard which is pending at the end of the respondent/NDMC. The second limb of submissions • made by thp learned counsels for petitioners/vendors was that the-Special Proyisiori.s Act would additionally come to rescu.e of the-.petitioners/vendors, 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 ofl the-arguments addressed by cotinseT 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 Gain_da Ramfsupra'), the subsequent order I dated

15.7.2011 directing parties to main;tain 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) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 &. connected matters Page 23 of 2B V, I ; •. » I passing the status quo order on 15.07.20.1:1, the;Supreme Coui t wns conscious of fact 'that l-''aiMiament had •yet to enact a comprelnensivelegislation to regulate, urbanlstreet vending and in .such circun'istances,' it goes without saying that it was the intent of' the (..,ourl that ttie entire dispute redressal mechanism 'as I'ecognizedin the c.a.se oi .Gair)da_Rani(su.l2ra).would continue to reniain in operation,-so ris lo regulate ttie.urban street vending in.ttie NDMC area, till the legislationin that regard is enacted. Further, it was stressed tliat the S|.)ecial Provisions Act did not .provide, any protective umbrella to tlie pel.itionnis, whose squattiiig activities neithei-Pell ' under •the delinition ot "encroachment", nor under "unauthorized developinei'it". Jt was h.irlhej-asserted ttiat even oth.erwise pending an •appropriate legislation, NDMC Act wa,y available a,s-a Tall back optioni and the relevant provisions in the said enactment would continue to regulate street.vending ac.livity in 'the NDMC area and the petitionei's/vendors qould not claim a vested liglit to squat at any site oP ttieir own. , . ;

¶28Froni above, it is apparent thjat arguirients ar)(J .conntor i arguments I'lave been raised by both sides oh their respective versions of •• the meaning and effect of the status quo-order dated I.!r.7.20:1.1. i • _ - • ' i passed by the bupren'ie'Court.' It is also very apparent, that the nicaning j sought to be attributed by both sides as to the irnplicatioi) of tlie said j status quo order, is dian'ietrically opposed tQ each other. Not only this, both sides" are at a tangeht on the factum of-itlie pendericy or ol ficrwi.sr,; nf- ; W'.P.('C) ''J-743/20Xl^ S254/20.1.1 Si connsct.ecf niaHers'. • Priife 24 at''Ztf "the.interim applications filed before the Supreme Court by bolh, the applicants/vendorsand the respondent/NDMG,tor clariPication.'::,on whic.li the aforesaid order came to -be passed ps it' is the stand-ot tlie respondent/MDMCtl'iat the aforesaid appliccitions wei'e not disi'io.scd ol while passing the order dated 15.7.2011. TIpe parties are poles apart on lhe question of imiport oP the status quo ordei;^ 'and ttie erfect of the . observations made by •the Supren-ie Court jn tlie case ot Cgiiida i ' ' .RamXsuprcaas regards the approval of NDMP schehie. They arc also at locjgei-heads on the composition oT the acljudicatory mechanism m tlie MDMC iurisdictionand the manner oF its funptioning, as also the identity of ttie scheme which is validly/operating in the NIDMC areas Por regiilal.ini.) urban.-streetvending,.which had all been subject i,natter oP consuleial.ion • before, the Supreme Court ip the aPoresaiid case. The other i;^;sne,s ^ agitated by the parties-, starting Prorn the Interpretationof tlie vai-iou.s observations made by the Supreme Court in the aPoresaid judgnie.nl, the Pormulatio-noP the scheme as approved by the.Supreme Coiii't in the case. oP Sudfiir Madan (supra), to ttie Qomposition of (li.'M'Ute.^-, redressal rnectianism and its validity, as alsjo the' nieaning oP ttie '-:l.atu.s-quo order, are all in a turmoil as both the ||arti0S liave stoutly delended ttieir respective stands, which .ai'e cOnipletely at variance witti each ol.hei'. The only .common ground shared by the parties .is ttie Pactum ol' |.,)n:;.^ing of recent judgment dated

08.10.201(.J in tlie case of Ggi.iidLi ••.[\afn(supra.) and ttie subsequent status quo order dated 15.7.2n..l..1 pa.s.'-:ed W.P.(C) <^743/2011^ 5254/20J.X Si cSnneci:ed ruBUersi • .. •v. •by tl'ie Supreme Co'urt. • ; • 29. The IminliainheacI oP the dispute in lihe 'present cases l;hf:ie(uie remains tlie status quo order dated 15.7.26.11 passed l..)y Uie .snpi-eine Court.. The issue which is soughfto l;ie agitated befoi'e thrs L.onrt is tlrai' liavincj regard to the status quo order, whether a stay order ought to be granted by this Court in Pavour-orthe petition'ers/vGndorsas prayeul loi by theni, irrespective-of their legal status, thus foil.'idding Ihe respondent/NDMC from threatening and/or removing them Trom the diPferent'sites occupied by then-i in the l\ipMC a,reas. In other words, this • Court is being called upon to examine tiie ipeaning-, scope and ollei.I. ol the status quo order dated 15.07.2011. -On the question oP how to ascertain the implication oP a statLis qu-. order passed by a (::ourl, in Ihe cg.qe oP Messrs Bharat Coking Coal .Limits-J fstipral, it'was observed l.)y ihe Supren-ie Court that tPie expression, "staius quo' is undoi.iljtedly a lerm oP ambiguity and at times, gives lise to dnubt pnd diPPiculty and in case any party has any doubt on, -the ryeaning and itlie ePPect oP,l,he •5lal:u.s order, the proper course Per such a parlv wcjuld be to approach the i that had passed the status quo order, to'seeif:..clariPicatior)S.

30.' ' Iri the case at hand, while seeking 1:0. i;ide tPie wave oP l.he aPmii.snid status quo order, the. parties l)ave clin^eiji to overlook one imporlani Pactor, whicti is, that a status qi.io order operates on both sidtis. Ilui '.Supreme Court Pias passed ordei"S requiiing ibotl'i sides to niaintain .sialu.s •W.P.(C'] 4743/2011, 525:4/20:!I.X a. connticteil matters' : Faoe 2f> aC 2H quo. Once such an order of the Supr^nie C.OLirt is on record, the .same nol; only binds all. the^ parlies to the adjudication, and all the pai tie.^-, civil 'orjudicial \who are required to act in accordance with ttie said ort.lci'-^, but I . it equally binds the High' Court from interreririg with such an order, as l.he said order has been passed in litigations before the highest Lioi.irt ot the •land. •

¶31The orders oP the-Supreme Court'are on record. Tlie status r|U(> order is a clear signal to the hiigh'Court as well, to avoid yrariLiiiy any. order, including an interim order, when the-i Supreme Court has iJii ecii.ec.l• for status quo to be maintained, In sucli cincun'istahces, if this Court was to gi-ant a stay oi'der in Pavour of the petitipn.ers/vendors arrayed bePuie •it, it woLild be tantamount to'negating the orders oP the Sur.)remf; Ctn.irt, • wtiich require, the pai'ties to n'laintain status quo pendiiig enacl'.nienl: ril' appi-'opriate legislatioh. IP either oP the parties were ui"iclear ali(..iut the int6:rpretation -oP the status quo order, it was Por th.en'i to I'lave .a|.)plinil-t'o l:he Supreme Court Por cla'riPications tlierepP. Additionally, l.he leliai'ice placed by .'the petitioners/vendors on the Special' Provisions Act se.okinq 1 , interim legal, sanctity to placement 'oP goods by tlien'i on llio paven'ients, by terming It as, encroacl'iri'ient/unauthorized i.isc!, a.s, •recognized under said Act and tl'ieir contention tPiat tl'te .Supuniie •Court had recognized the Pact that the Special l-rovlsions Act is the only Central law having primacy over other Statutes-, are also matters tl'inl tlu.; 4743/2013.^ 5254/20X1 fft con'i?ect(3d makers' Pays 27-ui' 2H petitioners/vendors ought to liave placed Lietore the Siipreine Coiirl while seeking clarifications oF the status quo o,i"der. It would tlierelni'e he advisable for the petitioners/vendors as also the respondenl./NtiMr: t(.) approach Supreme Cpurt and rnal<.s their submissions (here as legards their grievances. However, as bpth parties. insisted'thnl Iheir arguments be taken note of and their subjinissions be placed on rec.oid, some pains tiave been taken to do the needful.

¶32-.f.n view ohthe aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it will not be appropriate for it lio grant stay orders in Ihe fav::e of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Supreine (;:ourt; It is reiterated, that any such ordei" sliall be an anti-ttiesis to i.he oiders (.if tl-ie Supreme Court, which'must be respected both, in Letter nnri spirit, hi such circumstances, the present petitions, are disposed of by declining gi dM.t of any interim orders to the petitioneris. However, liberty i.s granted to both the paities to apply to the Supreme;Court for a clarification(,)f the status quo order dated^ 15;07.2011 passed in the case of Gainda Kaii! , (.SLillra)..' The parties are left to bear their own costs. C)CT0t:IY3> rkb " • (P- • ^ , 2011 W.P./cj^743/2011^525^!./2011®connerter/,naCCers iicoiiMiit.:ii:) ..lUDGII;- P'ay^. 2if in" 2n

sJ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2Q1.1 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 + w.P.rc^ 4347/2011. 4559/2011. 4593/2Q11. 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 6102/2011. @107/2011.. 6108/211. 6114/2011. 6115/2011, 6116/2011. 6117/2011 6118/2011. 6119/2011. 6120/2011 6121/2011. 6122/2011. 6123/2011. 6144/2011. 6250/2011. 6270/2011. 6271/2011. 6449/2011. 6527/2011. 6528/2011, 6529/2011. 6530/2011. 6531/2011. 6532/2011. 6533/2011, 6534/2011. 6538/2011. 6555/2011. 6667/2011. 6668/2011. 6669/2011. 6670/2011, 6684/2011. 6701/2011. 5173/2011- 4739/2011. 5046/2011. 5051/2011. 5157/2011. 4649/2011, 4722/2011. 2601/2011. 2602/2011. 3052/2011. 3181/2011, 3185/2011. 3189/2011. 3196/2011. 4340/2011: 4342/2011. 4343/2011. 4344/2011. 4345/2011. 4349/2011. 4350/2011. 4352/2011. 4354/2011. 4356/2011. 4358/2011. 4359/2011. 4360/2011. 4361/2011. 4362/2011. 4363/2011. 4364/2011. 4365/2011. . 4366/2011. 4367/2011. 4368/2011. 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.fC) 4347/2011 and connected iTTsfters 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. SMlZlOll, 5089/2Q11, s;ftQQ/-,ni| _ 5117/20»: 5»a/,nt,' S799/2OH, 6824/2011. 6825/20U- fi«7q/201l' figTT/yntl' !!!!('."^ ^^°^^Z011. 6908/7011. figno/Tnii S!a!!'.£Ui:;!Ljaaiiu .1^ THE MATTERS np MOHD AWM Petitionerin W,P.(C)4347/2011 KIRPALSWCH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4559/2011 * • SHAILENDERKUMAR PetitionerIn W.P.(C)4593/2011 SAN AY ••••• Petitionerin W.P,(C)4610/2011 > BABIIj Petitionerin W.P.(C)4650/2011 AIviar IMATH qrwrM Petitionerin W.P.(C)4651/2011 GAIMESH P^SAD Petitionerin W.P,(C)4827/2011 BHUPALSI^H Petitionerin W.P.(C)4923/2011 SURE.DERSI^CHANO ORS. i;:: :::::S-;;rwS*s'?S;. VISHWBARJHA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5254/2011 o^Es.^A^ i:::.p^:[§IS!! "mar auas lucKv :::::.p~- i: 'V i^lOHD ZAHID Petitionerin W.P.(C)5292/2011 ^ SHAKEELAHMFn Petitionerin W.P.{C)5312/2011 IMAND I<ISHOrI Petitionerin W.P.(C)5317/2011 RliMKU KUMAR GUPTA Petitionerin W,P.(C) 5402/2011 HARJEETiTaTr Petitionerin W.P.(C)5403/2011 .ARESH KUMAR RAO AND ORS. ^a^^^Srasao BHUPINDER Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5413/2011 MU..ATHAKUr'^RAHESHTHAKUR::;:Sire:in";:j:-^?cr5™ . ^5^'^347/2011andconnectedmatters g % ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. SUNDER SINGH DHARAM VEER SINGH MAHESH PAL SINGH RAJ RANI DULI CHAND SHANTA RAM MAHENDER PAL PAWAW-K-UMAR SiNGH TARUN KUMAR RAVINDER KUMAR DINESH YADAV RAM BAHADUR ANIL KUMAR GUPTA RAM AVTAR SHANKAR LAL PADAM SINGH MEENA MOHD.HASMAT VIPIN PRASAD SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA BABU KHAN VDAY KUMAR SHASHI KUMAR PANDEY PREMA SINGH. PURAN CHAND OMKAR GUPTA KUMER RAJENDER BHAGNARAYAN YADAV KARAN VIR MATA PRASAD YADAV BABU LAL RAMESH CHAND LAXMI BHAGWAN SAHAI