Narender Kumar v. Ndmc and Ors

order dated. 15.07.2011, whiiJi is the . bone of contention and is I'eproduced hereinbelow:- "l-leai'd learned counsel for tlie appliicants and, i.ieinsed the record. . 4743/201X, 5^254/20X1 & cannescled instlers '• Pa.ge 3 of 2H Since •judgment of this Court has so Pai' not been iinplernented', iiiasrnuch as apipropiiate legisiation has not been enacted by con-ipetent legislatiii'e, we direct parties to maintain the status quo as it is obtaining today."

¶3It was tiie sutirnission of ttie ieaimed counsel Pur resi-iondent/NDMC thai: the atoi'esaid order issued by the Supi eme (..ouii:, calling upon pai"ties to maintain st'aCi/s c/uo as obtaining on I.!d.07.2011, can only be interpreted to mean that the extensive, direcl.ions issued earlier, on 08.10.2.010, in the case oP i"0|:)0ii.0d as (2i010) 10 see 7'15 sliail continue lo reniain in operadon, incli-idinq tlie adjudicatory mecl'ianisrn provided Por by tPie I\II3MC in tPie scheme presented by it bePoi'e tlie Supi'eme Court and apr-)i'0ved in

1.1 le said -judgment, till the appi'Dpilate government enacts a law Por regulating urban sti'eet hawl<ers and street vendoi's. It was stated i.iiat simply because tl ie-legislatui'.e lias not'enacted a law in l;his regard or bePi.ne

30.06.201:1, as directed in', the aPoresaid judgment, il. canudl. Pie contended by the peti1;ioners/vendoi"Stliat tliei"e exists a vacuuni am.i the said vacuuni can no longer be Pilled up by continuing to regulale Ihe vending activities in the NDMC jurisdiction in ttie n-iaiinei' as set (.:iul. in tlie aPoi'esaid judgment. , , •^1. To give a brieP backgraund oP the dispute, learned counsel Por the j-espondent/lMDMC walked this Court tlirougPi some prominent decisions oP I.Pie .Su|:ireme Coui t I'endei'ed Pr'om tin^ie to tiirie, wPiicPi I'elate to •pavement W.P.(CJ •'l743/20i it, 5254/aoix B, t:onnecl(Bd nial:l:e.rs Pfage. 4 of ' squatLei'syi'iawkers, sfa-rting fi-orn the decision in Lhe case o(^SodLln oilly.li vs. MDMC 8i. Ors. reported as (1998) 2 SCC 727, Lhe interim i.irdei' dated

03.03.2006 -passed by' the .Supren-ie Court in W,.IP'..(C) 1699/:lL9a.7 entitled Sudhir 1^1ad an &, Ors. vs. MCD. the final judgment in the cnso of-Sudhir-Madan (supra) reported as (2009) 17 SCC 597 aj id .lastly, judgment dated 08.10.2-010 passed in the case or ^a_hidaJ(ainJ.suj:)j q.)..

¶5Learned counsel foi'tfie respondent/NDMG veherneritly opposed -prayer of tl'ie petitioners/vendors for grant of interini orclei'S restraining ttie respondent/NDMIC from removing ttien-) fixTm tlie sites •occupied l.iy tfiern till the enactment of an. appropriate legislation, in terms of l.he directions issued by the Su|3reme Couit in the, case ot .yahida jlarii (suQra),-She paiticlilarly referred to the .observations made by the Supreme Court ii'i pafas 40 and '-IJ .of the judgment in ttie Cxrse ot .Sodmi Singti .(supj:a.),, whicfi dealt witfi tfie Immediate eviction of unaul.hori/.erI sqi.iatters/fiawkers and-laid emphasis .oii tfie fact tliat ii'i tfie saifi case, tfie Supreme Court had directed removal of unauthorized squatteis/h.Twker.s without awaiting final allotment of sites to.be allotted Lo eligible claimants' at the'places recommended by tfie Thareja Committee or suyqesl.ed by 'the NlJ|v|C. • ' • -

¶6Again, in tfie inter'im order dated

03.03.200G pa.9sei.l in J^ycjhir i Madan's case (supra), i-ollovv/ing observatioi-i made by .Supreme Court was fiighligfited by the coui'isel for the responrjenl:/l\IDMC:- 4743/201 5254/201.I Si i.:i.innecl:ed rnaiiers -Fcignr. 5 itf 2:f "While' w(? unclerl:al<e tliis exercise;, we clirecl: Lhc. Aul:lToril:ies l:o see to it tliat tl'iose persons, wlicj aie cari'-ying on l'iawl<inq sictivities or w/lio are squatting on pul^lic land wittiout any aiitliority, even in accordancc with present day sclierrie in force, are ren"in\/L;d Torttiwith. Ttiis ini:lLides .unauthorized, hawking, squatting on public streets,' Pootpatl'is and pLiblic i.iark.s,- including playground. V\/e direct tlie Delhi Administration to take steps immediately in collaboration with MCl") and IMDMC with necessary assistance h'om Ijeltii I'olice to clear roads, streets, foot|;)aths, pai'ks etc. I'.iy LI n a u tI'lo riz e d o ccu |3a n ts/s q u n 11ers/ti a w kers."

¶7As to judgrhent dated

17.0.':. .2007 rendered in case ol Sydhlr J^laclan.Xsuj^ia) rnuch emphasis was laid t^y the counsel Toi' tlie respondent/MIDMC on paras to and .35, wliicti are iepi ciducei:! hereinbelow for ready reference "28. The Mew Delhi Municipal Corniriittee has al.sb subn'iitted its Schen'ie. We have considered ttie Sc.lieme submitted ijePore us. Thie area whicli Palls under l\ILil^^l(_; does not create problems sucti as those, in ai'ea.s" under MCD, However, in tlie said .Scheme rePerencc has been made to persons who do -not Piave permission under Section

22.5 or licence under Section oP tlie NDMC Act, J.994 liut who are unauthoi'iseclly continuing to carry on business as hawkei's/street vendors. They liave been described as tliose wlio are "tolerated" in the IMDMC area. We Pail to understand why any person wlio violates tine law should be tolerated. IfitPier they sliould be compelled to obey ttie law or ttie law may be suitably aiTiended, iP it is Pound to create undue tiardsl ii|:i. Ihe problems need to be addressed by the legislature or the rulemakjng authority. We, therePore, obsei've that IP is Pelt tPiat ttie pj^rsons wPio Pall in ttiis category lerjuire' sp-ecial protection, tPie /Act may be suitably amended to cover their cases or else ttie number oP sucP squatters n'lay increase Prom time t,o l/l/.P.rCJ 4743/2011, 5254/201X SI, connected miners • Page C,

¶29Tliere has been no serious objecLioii l:o Llie Scl'icine SLibrnitliecl by IMDI'^IC which is a conipreliensive scheinc-;. Certain direcLions liave, however, beei"i soughL.ror fVorn l:his CoLii'l;. We approve Llie Scheme si:ibrriil:l:et.i l.iy

¶30II; is submitted before us that Schiemes wliir.h have been approved by tliis Court must be subjecl: to any Act or rules tliat may be framed in consonance va/IMi National l-'olicy on Ui'ban Street Vendors... It goes witliout saying that we iiave approved the Scliemes as framed by i'^ICD and IMDI^^IC. .If tlie legislature intei'venes and' frames another sctieme or regulations governing sucti Schemes, that will certainly su|:)er'sede I.lie Schemes prepared by I^ICD and MDMC. It is well settled ttiat any. administrative action is always subject to law that may be framed by tfie competent legislature. 35-Subject to t:ie aforesaid rnodifications/cl;ianges in. the Schemes submitted -by I^ICD and MDMC, the same are approved. The said auttiorities shall now tal<e appropriate steps to implement the Sclieme forttiwith. In case of any difficulty faced Liy tliern in imrjiemenl.ing the scliemes, they shall liave ttie liberty to apply to ttiis Court."

¶8Lastly, in tlie recent judgment in tfie case of Gairida Kani (supra); j learned counsel for the resporident/NDMC specifically relied upon paras 30, 32, 50 to 66 to state that tfie Supreme Court was consclou;; of the fact tliat a structured regulation and. legislation is urgently rc(.|uiicd in control arid regulate tlie fundamental i"ight of.hawking. Slie also iiointed OLit that three ,tier disputes I'edressal mechanism set out in affidavit filed by the tlien Chairpersori of the NDMC was tal<en. ii(.)te of by tfie Su|ireme Coui't in |.iara 7,2 of tlie afoi'esaid iudgment and in para 7;i, il was then observed as below W.P.(C) 4743/2011, iS25^J/aOXX ® connecXed lusiiers Page-7 of 2(1 "73. In paragrapl'i 12 oT Uie'arfidavit il has been slalX'.d Li'ial; there sliall be an /-Vppeilate ALiliiority wiiicli siiall attend to redressa! of grievances of sc|ual;te,i'.s,. hawl<ers, traders, residents or any other |;ierson by liearinq appeals against decision of tlie ' Vending Committee (i^'lain). Pai'agraph 12 of tliat affidavit is sol; out below:- There shall be an ApiDellate forwarding of petition,-?, Chairperson, this Auitiority redress a I of giievances of : /Auttioiity. On !-eceived l:)y stiall attend lo ;qLiatters, fiawkers, in le traders, I'esiderits or any' ottier person. /-ViJtl'iority shall also fiear .appeals againsi: decision of Veiiding Comihittee

(Main). I3ecisi of ttiis Authority unless challenged before a l-lighcN' Forum oi" ii'i any Competent Coui't, stiall l.:)e final. Ttiis Autliority sliall be initially lieaded by a r,iers(.in appointed by the Chairinerson having at least JO years legal or judicial background. Thei'e caii l>e more than one n'leniber ii. tliis Autl'ioi'ity."

¶9After making tlie aforesaid .observations, in iiaras 74 to 7(.i ol' judgnient, the Supi"eme Court went on to obsei've as below-;- "74-. .[n the said affidavit, which was affirmed l.;iefoie this Court on 24'"'' August, 20;L0 it fias been stated that NDMC stiall coiriply witti orders wtiicli woi.ild tie passed by the acljudicatoi'y mechanism contemplate(.l in tlie scheme and which tias tieen approved tiy this Coiiit for the NDMC area, unless such orders are made si.il.ijer;!; matter of cliallenge bel'ore a higlier foi"um oi-in any other competent Couit.

¶75.In view of sucti schemes,- hawkers, squattei's and vendors must abide by ttie Djspute Redressal scherne inentioned above. T^hei-e should not be any direct approach to this Court by way of fi'esfi petition oi lAs, bypassing t^ispute l-(edres5al Mlechanirini provided in the sclverne. V\I.p:(€) 4743/2011, S25:-^-/20.!..1 & connecied mailers rwye a t'f

¶76l-lowever, before 30"' June, 2011, Lhe approi'iriale Govei'nmeiit is to enact a law on the. basis oP t'tie I3III mentioned above, or on basis of any ameridnlent tlieireof so that the hawkers, may precisely Icnow the contours of their rights."

¶10It was tliLis sought to be contended on betialf . uf l.he' respondent/IMDI^IC that ttiere can be no vacuum as fa.r ,as legulnllon of trade of street hawkeis/vendors in tlie MDI^C jurisdiction is (^oncerileij aiu.t the failure on tl'ie part of the legislature to abide by the tiri'ieline set 6i.il: by the .Siiprerne Court in the case of Gaind^i Ram fsupra), ijy putj.ing in. place a statute on:.or before

30.OG.2011, cannot be interpret.ed tiy petitioners/vendors to mean tfiat they can continue their' trade unhindered at any place'of their choice in the IMDI^IC jurisi.li(;:l.ion, ' ii i an unr-egulated mannei" aiid witliout any obstruction or otrjection fiom tlx?, MDMC. . .. • . ,

¶11I_earned counsel for the respondent/NIDI^'IC particularly referr.r?d -lo paras and of tlie aforesaid judgment to state that l:he di3i:)u[.(:;'. redressal scheme, noticed by the Supreme Court in par'a '7'5 was the one tliat was legally functioning in IMDMC jurisdiction and whicli was .i:aken I'lOte of by the Court in the preceding para 74. In other words, she stated that Lhe si:heme as set out in-the affidavit dated 24.00.20.1.0, filed by t.lie tlieh Liiaii-person of NDMC before the Supreine Court in Gajjida KaLii's, C3.se (supra), was tlie." one whicfi was finally approved by the .Supreme ' Couit. She furtilei"submitted that assuming, without admitting, l.liat the ^7-43/3011^ S2S^J/20:f..( car,nscf ed clis|.iul:e reclressal scheme set out by Lhe NDMC tiad lapsed on 3C).r),,-H) 1.1 OS claimed by Ll'ie petitioners, tlien NDMC /Xct provides an a(..le(.|uaLo fallback to ensui e orderly management oT vendoi s iii tlie ai ea. .S| iRcific reference was made in this regard to ttie provisions contaiiied in Scclioirs 221, 224, 225 and ,22(5 of the said Act.

¶12It was furtlier ai'gued by ttie counsel foi-ttie i espondent/NDMC tlint the application filed by ,tlie NDMIC befoi'e the Su|:jreme Couit in .July 20 1 I |:;raying inter alia for extensloi'i of Lime to I'eguiate hawkei s/sriual.Lei s in ttie NDMIC area, as per the scheme mentioned in tlie judgment in Gpinda Ram's case fsupra), till the enactinent of a law by the legislature in l.tiaL legaid, tiad noL yet been finally disposed of by the Suprerne Couht aL Llie :• ! tii'ne of passing of the status quo oixler dated

15.07.20J.1 and similarly, Lhe oLtier applicaLion'filed by one of the liawkers/vendoi'S piTiying inlci alia for restraining the responclent/NDMiC from granting I'ehhazari ritjhl.s to ttie winners of the-lucky draw of lots for• allotrnent, wtiich was to tie field on

12.05-2011 • or any date thereafter, was also peiK.ling consideration before the Supreme Court. l-lence, no finalil:y could Lie attached to the order dated

15.7.2011 whicfi can only be consi(.le!ed an iriteiiin measure till the final disposal of Lhe aforesaid appllcatioirs ur the eriacLmeriL of a legislaLion.

¶13On merits, learned counsel for Lhe respondenL/NDMC referred to the' alficldviL daLed 01.08..2011 filed by tlie Director (Eiiforcement), IMfiMli.:, W.P.(C) 47^s.3/20tl, ffi corirjecfed maU.ers Page .I.O ijf 7It wherein it was stated • i'lat pursuant to public notice issued l.iy the l\ID|v|C inviting applications under ttie l\ID|v|C Ui'ban 5ti-e.et Vei uling Sci'ienie in tl'ie year 2007, respondent/NDMC liad' received 'Vi6/ applications. Tlie documents , equired by the applicants for registi ation ui-ider Scheu'ie included a pi oot oP age, documentary iji'oor/apriclavil Tor tlie purpose of annual income, j)i"ool' oP residence, prooP ii"i supp(.H I. nP special categories like handicapped, Tashmiri migrants etc. and prooP of squatting in ttie IMDi^C area, iP any. Jn para 4 oP tPie aPorcsaid aPPidavil;, Pollowing criteria apiproVed/adopted by ttie Vending Corniniltee to stiortlist tPie eligible applican;ts is set out;-Tl'iat tiie criteria ap|:iroved/adopted by tl".ie Vending Con"iiTiittee to slioi'tlist ttie eligible applicants is as u n der; -

(i) Tlie apijlicarits stiould t)e re 'dent oP Dell'ii, witPi lii.s name registered in electoral rolls as pei" abstiac:!: m( photo.E-F<oil or EI-<0 certiPicate.

(ii) Ttie applicant si'iould be a n'lajor, viz. witli over I years oP age as per-valid birti'i cei'tiPicate oi" age certiPicate-orscliodI certiPicate etc.

(iii) Tlie ariplicant should be a needy as i^er ir records oP i~)C (P^evenue) oi" as vulnerability records oP Govei'nment oP NCT oP Deltii (Saniajil< Suvidhn .S'angam; vulnerable and most vulnerable category).

(iv) The ap|",ilicant sliould be registered as .per' NlJMC.' Street Vendors Scheme. "I~he policy veriPication oP the applicant should be available.

(v) Ttie applicant or . Piis dependent Pamily menihcr should not be employed oi' stiould not tiave any otlun tetibazari/vend.ing or any other business pieiriises in Delhi as per record veriPication oP MDMC/MCD. W.l".(C) 47^13/20:! 525^!/201.1 SV conneclei.l niRS.ters ' Paye .11 J <i/'.VMT

(vi) Preference will be given to applicants who aie physically handicapped or widows or senior citizens above years • or Kaslirniri migrai')ts oi' SC/.'r.iI (necessary certificate to be submitted •and relaxation may be given in the above ciiteria)." ,1-^1. As per respondent/IMt^MC.', categoi'y-wise list ol" eligil:)le sfioi-tlisted applicants in tei'nis of the afoi-esaid criteiia totalled lo applicants. Tlie affidavit dated U1.0u..Z011 states ttial. I.he respondent/MDMC tias identified

¶183nt w spaces, in addition to tlie remaining spaces identified by the Thareia Committee in the NI.'iMC area, wtiich • were available for allotment,' thi.s taking tfie total .iiuml..iei o( available s|:iaces to 3S6. -It was further .stated ttiat due to factors lil'.e de-listing of Parliament Street on set j|-il:y grounds, consti iiction -of flyovers and'Metro Stations at various locations in the I\II3MC Juiisdiction, tfie number of authorized tehbazeri squatters tias changed froin •:i''lf!' to. 40-^1 in nuiTiber. The number of applicants, who ttie respoiident/MI-)MC claims, are vending ' unauthorisedly at Connaught Place, Sai ojini Nagar, Parliai'nent Street and Janpath areas cind in wtiose tavoui', r^laliis Qiio oi dei's are opei'ating., is stated to be-323 in nu.rnber. "ftie affidavit asserts that simply because the names of tlie petitioners, wlio are registered wilh ttie MDNC, figure in the eligibility list drawn by the respoi"ulent/Nt)M(;:, cannot be ti'eated as proof of their i^egularly vending in tlie Mt')MC: area and noi" does it confer on thern any enfoiceable vested rigfit to eiis.i.ire a vending space for them in tfie NDMC ai'ea, whicti is directly ile| leni lent rjii Vlf.P.-(C) 47^3/2011, 525^^/2013. Si co/snec.I.eii msljeis rnoe .1.2 iff 2U I Lhe number of spaces available. Tlius, il; was conLencled Uial: neiihor IJie possessioiT of any number of challans, nor the absence .tliereof can inako a dlffereiice, for the I'eason that challans cannot form basis foi' Iho petitioners to claim any vested legal riglit to squat at a given space. .1.5. Counsel for responderit/NDMC asseited that pie.s'en't petitions are not maintainable inasrnuch as petltioiiers liave an equally efficacious alternate remedy of appi'oaching a|i|.)ellate. K auttiority constituted by ttie Chairperson, NDMC, for redressal of theii' grievances and failui-'e on tfieir pait to have approached j.lie Vending Committee is not on account of the fact tliat the said Corriiriittee including, the appellate auttiority is not functioning, biit because they liave iVxiiUj, it more convenient to bypass the aforesaid forum and'approacli l.liis Court directly, which is not permissible. Slie' stated tl'iat extensive mna.sures liave been taken by the responclent/NDMC to constitute tlie adjudicatoiy iriGclianisrn by way of'a three tier system in the following manner: -;

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

¶2Vending .Sub-Committee (Meath and Hygiene) and;' . .3. Vending Sub-Committee (Enforcemerit). .15. She stated that tlie creation of l;tie aforesaid three Vending .Sul.)- COiTirnittees,Vending CornrniLtee(Main), as also of the appellate autlmrily •which was constituted to' i-edre.ss the grievances of l:lie . sgilatters, hawkeis, tiadeis, lesidents or any othei" person against the dct.isioirof W-P.(C)4r743/2011^5254/20iXS, cn,,nscl-e.d,us!ters 'P,nje.'13 ofXU - tl'ie Vending Conimil:Lee (I'^ain), was placed inelxire IJie Supreirie Courl. lur considerai:ion and Llie said Ll'ii'ee tier adjudieaLory iriecl'ianisni was dLily approved in l:he iudqiTient of Gainda Ram fsupra').

¶17l"-^er contra, ieaiaied counsels Por petitidneis/vendors, who a|:jpeai'ed on diTPerent dates, vehemently ofjposed aPdresaid stand taken by the respondent/IMDMC and asserted-ttiat the scheme Ploat.etJ l)y ttie respondent/NDMC Por regulating vending activities in its ji,rris(.li(::tioii had lapsed on 30.06.2011 in the absence oP thie enactment oP a legislation • as per directions oP the Supi'eme Court in tl'ie case oP Gainda Ram rsujjfa) and as on date, there'is no'schen'ie in existence. It w;as caiiva.sse:(I ttiat. ttie implication of al'oresaid order of, staiiis quo i.iassed by Supreme Court on 15.07.2011 can only, mean that irrespective oP I.he Pact whether squatting is legal or illegal, sairie be |;5erniitt"ed to continue on an 'as js wliere is' basis, and sucii sL-atus quo is l.o lie maintained by all the parties till a law is Pi'amed by the legislati.ii'e. ly. Mr. B.B. Sawfiney, Sr. • Advocate apiuearing Por Iho petitioners/vendors submitted that in the case oP Gainda Pxam (supra), Supreme Court had.directed that tl'ie appropiiate government mi.ist enact a law on or bePore 30.OG.2011 so that tfie fia-wkers may ['precisely know tlie, contours oP their rights, tieiice ttie dispute red.ressal merlianisnr provided Por in the scheme mentioned in ttie aPoresaid judgmeni: could Dperate only upto

30.06.2011 and thei'eaPter, said sclienie would 4743/2011, 5254/2011 Si connecied niatters Puge 14 uf JH auLonial.icaliy staiid lapsed. He staLed Lhal: no oLiTer inl:erprel;aLioi"i can l.ifr! given to Liie order dated 15.07.2011, directing maintenance of s/.v-??/././.';(//./o, in view of the qLialiryinq words, "as it is olDtain.ing today", l ie aiqi-ied lhal it the sclieme was continuii'ig to operate, as clain'ied by die leainei.l counsel foi" the respondent/NDMC, ttien tliere was no good I'easoii foi^ IJic respondent/NI3lviC to. have refrained trorn tiolding a draw oP luis, which was slated for tl'ie same day, i.e., ,1 5,07.20.tl, and tl'iat Pact of the mailer is tl'iat even respondent/NDMC I'lad undersl;ood tl'ie sLalJ.is quo order to mean tl'iat there is no scheme in.place alter 30.G.201J., Toi;' l.hn reason that in para of the aforesaid judgment in the case of .Gaiijda, Kai11 (supra), all tfie writ petitions and the interini applications filed hefcjie Su|".ireme Court were disjjosed of with clear and specific directions Ihat the problem of hawl<ing and street vending could be regulaled by schemes framed by the MDMC alnJ MCD only upto .:i0.0G.20.l :l and not ttiereafter. It was asserted on behalf of the petitioners/veiidois tlial as on date, directioiis of the Supreme Court ttiat .sl:nl:us (]uu is lo be maintained by tlie parties can only be given one intei pretatioii, which is ttiat till a law is ultimately enacted by the Parliament, iri'e.c;pGCtive of Iheii legal status, all tfie petitioners/vendors would be permitted i.o c(.)nliiiue squatting/hawking at tlie sites that liave been occupied by tliein. .1.';). Jiisofar as the composition of the dis|:)ute redressal mechaniMii is concerned, learned-Senior Advoi;:ate for l;he |;)etitioners si.ibmil l.e(.l thai contrary to tfie understanding of ttie resiDondent/MDMC, i.he sclieme l/1/.P'..fCJ47yl3/2011^ S254/201t S connecl.ed fnaU:ers faife J of JS • repi ocliiced at paras,72 and 72) in the judgn-ient in l.lie case ol^Gghida Hpiri (siipi'a), was not the one wtilch was actually recognized Ijy tlie Sn|jieirie : Court, and rather it is the dispute i-eclressal scheme nieritioiied in |.iara 7';. ! of the aforesaid judgi'nent i.e., 'o sclienie for iirijan street venc.lois foi MDMC area as foi-niulated in year .2006, whicti \/\/as ullimately.' ^ approved ioy the Supreme Court on 17.05.2007, in the case oC .Gudliir I Madan (SLipra), which is tlie scheme vi/tiich finds mention specificnlly in tlie following para 74 and is the one approved by the Su|;)i-eirie Courl. II was contended tfiat even otherwise, ttie National-Capital 1'erritory cjf t'elhi Laws (.Special Provisions) Act, 2011 (hiereinafter refeired to as 'Sipieciiiriill IPrcn/'iiEiioiiiiEAcit') comes to tlie rescue of the petitioners for-the i-ea,son tliat sub-clause

(2) of .Section 3 of tlie Special Provisioirs Act inarnlate.s maintenance of status quo as on

01.01.2006, notwithstanding any judgment,• deci'ee or oixler of any court, in respect of encroachment or unautliorized development. ITius, it . was submitted on behalf of die petitioners/vendors ttiat ttiey were entitled to grant of interim prol ccl it)ii till tlie enactment of a legislation to regulate hiawl'dng/vending activities in urban streets in IDelfii on the i^asis of the IMational Policy on Url.ian .Strer;!. Vendors, 2009 framed on 17.06.2009 and the Special Provisions Act.

¶20With reference to Special PiT)visions Act, reamed yiniiioi Advocate foi petitioners .stated that the phrase, "unautliDrized developnient used in' tfie deTinition claiise has to be seen in ihr^ .'-.aiiie context as tlie one in which the phVase "encroachment"has been defined, ^7^u/2!ril, 5254/2011 ft cor,nect,ed,miters , uf 7n VA/herein it is mentioned that jDUtting up of temporary, semi-tem|jorai y oi permanent structure fpr residential use or commercial use or any other use, and the placement of goods on tine pavements by tiie petitionei's is liable to be termed as unauthorized use Poi-maintaiiiiiig status quo uiK.lei l:l"ie Special Pi'ovisions /-\ct. i^luch ernphasi's was laid on aveiaiieiits made by tine respondent/IMDI'^IC in its interim application Piled bePoie Su|3reme Court in Gainda Ram's case ("supra) in July 20:1.;i., to sutimit thai. respondent/i\lli)MC itself had stated in, the said applical:i:on thai; Uie scheme had lapsed and tlierefore, only intei'pretation tliot can be given to stalxis quo order passed by Supi'erne Courl. on 201:1. can be tliat no scheme woukl exist after 3'0.0G.2(.] I .1 and ttius, the benefit of the Special Provisiorrs Act bugtit to be extended to tho petitioners. hie submitted that piirase 'street vendors' has beeii clearly defined under the National Policy on Urban Street VenrU.ns, 200'..). t Reliance was placed in tlie case oP Patii Vyapar l^landal Peltii (-Regd.) ys, ; MCD Town Hall'Qrs. reported as (20i09) .12 SCC

47.5 and i.lie I provisions of the Special Provisions /Act to submit that even tlie Su|.Menie. : Court liad recognized the Pact that tl'ie Special Provisions Ad: is tlK-> only ; Central law governing Pield and it would liave primacy over oilier I Statutes and administrative orders. :i:t is tlius stated that tlie pif,>visioiis I ,oP the l\IDi"^'IC Act cannot be invoked by the respondent/MI3MCas the said I .Act is not in conson.ance with Article 96 oP tlie Constitution oP .Imiia and i Puitheimore, tPie Special Provisions /Act being' valid till the end ol' ; W.r.(CJ S25-4/2011 ff, corrnecfed Page J7 uCXn December 2011, no orders in derogal.ion of the provisions of the said Acl. can Ije passed. ^ 21. I^lr. S.K. Tripatl'ii, Advocate appealing for some of jt.lie petitioners/vendors sought to embellish the submissions of-Mr.SDwhncy, Sr.Advocate and relied on tl'ie order's passed in yVJP-CCjt 1449/201:11. entitled Mohd. Ismail vs. NDMC 8i. Ors. to urge that "Aripullate Authority" constituted under dispute redreSsal mechanism i'or l.ho.? NUMC area, tias not been functioning, whicti fact lie .stated is bornf-; oul iroiri a peri.isal of.the ordei' dated

08.03.2011 passed in f.l'ie aforo..'Maid case, wtierein the Court Look I'lotice of the claim of ttie petitioi-ier/veniJoi therein to effect that inspite of orders passed by l.l'ie A|jpellal.e Autliority allowing squatting at a particular site, till a final del;erniinnljon by-tfie Vending Con-imi'ttee as to his eligibility, the i-espondenL7Nf)l''|C: and ttie, police were 'disturbing fiis activities. In aforesaid order', I.lie si:atement of the counsel for the respondent/I'MIDMC was recordec.l,l.o effect that the appellate authoiity, whose order was being r'elied upon l.)y the petitioner thereij'i, was constituted initially for Lfie MClD'ai eas and Intei f . started functioning for the IMDMC areas as well for Lfie reason that al thai. • time, thei-e was no separate-.appellate authority for the NDMC areas, hut SLibsequently, in accordance with the scfierne approved by L'i'i'e Supreme Court, ttie Ctiairperson,. NDMC had constituted a se|.)arate a|.')|", authority for •the NDMC areas. Tfierefore, the ' appeJllate ai., •appointed earlier had ceased to have jurisdiction qua the NDMG areas. , 4/^,13/2011, S25/1/2011 a connected lualj.ers Page J3 tyf 28 n was Llius contended on behciif of petitioners/vendors tlifil l;hn aPoiesaid order clearly iiidicates ttiat Lhe appellate ai.ithority in l.lie MI.'jMC: areas is not rLinctioninq.

22.. I^eliance was also placed on l.lie minutes of the nieeting oP the Vending Committee dated 11.03.20J.0, to claim that it the Tact oP whethei tl'ieie was actual sgUatting/vending was veriPied by ttie Committee: am.J iP the names oP the petitioners/vendors Pigured in the eligibility list piepared by tl'ie respondent/MDMC Poi" holding tlie draw o" lots, then it did not lie in the nnouth oP the respondent/iMDMC to claim that the petitioners, wlio had been veriPied and Pound' to be eligible, w/ere not entitled tcj S(|uat at vai'ious sites in the MDMC ai'ea aPter 3 0.06.;l. 1.

¶23In I'ebuttal, cdunsel for tPie respondent/NlJMC" dispiitiM.I ttie contentions oP tPie petitioners/vendors and while leitQ'rating lior' finiiiei submissions, asserted that petitioners did not .have -any .legally enPorceabie rigPit, created on the basis oP tlie eligibility lisl. i.lrawn Ijy NDMC,, Por claiming, grant oP interim oiders in tPieii' Pavour. .She again rePerred to paras 68, 69, 7b, 76 and 78 oP the Judgment in ttie i.a.'ie oP G3il1cJ.g_.JiaIernptiasize tPiat when the afoiesaid paras are read collectively, it is clear that petitioners cannot claim an entitlement to any interim orders^ as souglit by them in l.lie |)iesent pioceedings- .She Purther stated that even otPierwise, ttie .Special P'rovisions Act relied upon by the petitionei's t)as duly recogr)i:/ed the ' W.P.(C) 4743/201.!, 5254./201X« canrrea:^.! manners . ' 19 o/'/n. • i -chemes pieparedby the local authoritiesin tlie National CapitalTciriloiy or Delhi for regulation of urban street vendors.' To substantiatethe said' submission,she drew the attention ot tliis Coui t to the preamble of the aforesaid Act, which mentions the fact that all the schemes pre|:.ared by the local authorities'in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, 'lor regulationof urban s.treet vendors in accordancewith the Natiin.al Polii.y on tJrban Street Vendors, 2009 and the Master Plan for Deltii 202 1, have I been implemented and further that more time is required foi; proper I implementation of the schemes regarding hawkers and urban streol I vendors. '2/~\. A specific reference was made by ttie. learned counsel fur ttie Iespondent/NDMC to Section 2(1 )(c) of the Sfjecial ProvisiOTis Act, wtiit.h defines the phrase "encroachment" to claim that it does not cover the petitionei's herein, who are squatters. Furtfier i"eference was ri'iade to l.he provision of Sectioii 3 of the Special Pi ovisions Act, wliich contains a non I obstanteclause, to state that status quo with I'egard to the encroni;hmeiil I or unauthorized deveiopirient as on 01,01.2006, mentioned-in the said ^ provision, was iri . the context of definition of |)liiase;i : "encroachirient" and "•unauthorized development" set out in the definition j clau.^e at Sections 2(.L)(c) and 2(1 )(i) respectively of tlie .Sper iai i: ProvisionsAct and thus,, the petitioners/vendorsdid not qualify i.inder tlie • • aforesaidenactmentfor clainiingprotectionas none of tlie iiigiedienis sel ; out in the .provision^;of tlie aforesaidenactmentare found to exist in l:heir ' : a conn^cteu .nstCers • r.ge 20 or JM 'case. It was submittedthat the Special ProvisionsAct, which ca I • efl'ect in tl'ie year 2007 and has tieen extended from time to time and lastly, l.ill December20.tJ., does not give permissionto persons In ir-slart i • • . , • . ' • I any acLiviCy once they have been removed by the civic n,..,lhoiity and ' siiriilarly, the Scheme of 2009 does not entide the registrants t<. s(|(.iat unless they have been.allotteda specificsite. In support oP the nCniesaid submission, reliance was place on the judgment in ttie case of MCtJ vs. fiy.!TianT.jKaur reported as (1989) II. SCC 101. For tlie pun.iose of interpreting the meaning ot the phrase, "structure", reference was made to the judgment of, the .Supreme Court in the case .of Kupicipaj .CgriioralLQD or Greater_Mml3ciy & Ors. vs. Indian Oil Cornoratiriii Ltd, reported as A.iflR 1991'SC 6S6. For ttie purpose of undei'standiruj-ex|iiression, 'status quo', reference was rruacle to tlie jLidgmerit in the case ol' Messrs Bharat Cokinci Coal Limited vs. State of Biliar & Ois. rep orled as. 198/ (Sypip) SCC 39.4 to submit ttiat in ord.inary legal connotation, I.he. • i ; term quo' implies the existing state of tilings at any given point i..if time. • • • I • • . i ' • ' • j 2b. 'As for the National Policy on LIrban Street Vendoi's, couiisel fVn-Um Iespoiident/NLJMLstated ttiat both, the 2004 i;)olicy and the 2(.)0!v)-policy, . i - ; • . • i • - • j find mention in the decision of the Supreme Court in ttie case of Gairida Ea.ilL-C§Li|jraJ_and it was only after taking into consideral.ion the said policies, did the Couit directed Ltie instituti.onalization .of irirhan sliriPi-ve.nding through legislation. It was furtfier stated that at the time, of « c-o/Tnecr.-e,y,".:Tf(e/-s Page. 2t<,f 7M . ' deliveimg the judgmentdated 8.10.2010, the Supreme;CourtLook nol.ire of-the NCT oP Delhi Laws (Special Provisions)Act, 2009, which was valid Lipto 30.1Z.2010, apart Pron'i I'loticing the i^iodel .Street Vendors (Protection oP Livelihoo.d and F^egulation oP Street Vending) Bill, 200'.-) introduced by the Government oP India, Ministry of Ilousing IM Uil.ian l-Qveity Allevidtion. She stated ttiat iiotl-iing new is now loeiiig sul.)i'ililled by petitioners/vendors herein, for tlie present petition;, l.o ho enteitained for any jTurpose-whatsoever and all the grievances raised by petitioners . can easily' be • addressed before tfie Vending. Committee/appellate a-uthority under the scheme relating to uiljan slK-.et • vending in tlie MDMC area, which fora continue to remain funcllonal, even after,30,6.2011.

¶26Tliis Court tias-heard these matters at length since IV.[i.20 I f, (ui different dntGS. Various couri5ei5 Por tlie ijetitioner's/vendois and i.he Standing Counsel Por ttie respondent/NDI^^'IC tiad addressed l:h(.^ c::nurl:.. . Tlieir respective arguments have been taken note oP: l3otlr sides liave made strenuous efPoits to explain wha.t tl'ie status quo order dated lb.7.2011 passed by Supreme Court in case, of Ga.indci .f^SLnCsyjsra)iniplies. Ihe leitrnoUr of tfie arguments addressed on L)ehrilf of the petitioners/vendors is that the status quo order r'ead witti ttu' c|u,.iliryiMg.words, "as it is obtaining today", suffixed to ttie oideiy (. an dnly be read to imply that as on date, i.e., 15.7.2011, there was no sidienie opeicitionalin the MIDMIC areas to regulate vending aclJvitiesand till a law ' w.P.(cj 47^3/2011, S254/20X1« connectedmilters Page 22 of'jn I # obtaining on the said date can only imply that the state of affairs as existing oh date are not to be-disturbed, until the rights of the. parties can be finally determined through legislation. It was submitted that while W.P.(C)474-3/2011, 5254/2011 '& connected matters Page'23 of 28 is ultimately enacted by the legislature, all the petitioners, irrespective of-their legal status, can continue squatting/hawking at different' sites that have been occupied-by them. It is also asserted that in the teeth of the status quo orders passed by the Supreme Court, the respondent/NDI^C in collusion with the police.authorities, is threatening to illegally remove the petitioners/vendors from different sites, which is detrimental, adverse, harassing and belligerent to those, who have been found eligible by the - respondent/NDMC for being allotted specific tehbazari spaces within the NDIVIC jurisdiction, but are being threatened due 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 learned counsels for petitioners/vendorswas that the Special ProvisionsAct would additionally come to rescue .of the •petitioners/vendors, which also requires maintenance of status quo as existing on 01.10.2006, till the end of December, 2011. '

¶27On the other hand, the main thrust of the arguments addressed by the counsel' for the respondent/NDMC was that as the legislature has failed to enact an appropriate legislation in terms of the decision of, the Supreme Court (n the case of Gainda Ramfsupral. the. subsequent order dated 15.7.2011 directing parties to maintain the' status quo as it is passing Uie status quo order on

15.07.2011, Supi-en'ie Com I. wn.s conscious or Tact that Parliament tiad yet to enact a comprehensive legislation to regulate urban sti"eet vending and in such circumstances, it goes without saying tiiat it was tlie intent of the C-ourt ; ttiat ttie entii'e dispute redressal mectianisi'Vi as I'ecocjnized in l.he ca,se oi' -Gainda l-^am("supra) would continue to remain in operation, so as lo regulate ttie urban street vending in, tlie NIDIMC area, till the legislal.ion in tliat I'egard is enacted. Fuji:her, it was stressed that JipecinI Provisions Act did not provide any pi'otective umbrella to tlie |iel.il:iiiners, wl'iose squatting activities neittier fell uniiier dehnition uf "encroachment", nor under "unautl'iorized development". Jt was furllier asserted ttiat • even otlierwise pending an appi'opi'iate legislation, NDMC Act was available as a Tall bacl< 0|:)ti0n and tlie relevant provisions ; in die said enactment would continue tp regulate sl:reet vending aciivity in ttie MDMC area and tlie petitioners/vendors could not claim a vested litjlil. i j to squat at any site of ttieir ovwi. , 2U. From above, it is apparent that arguments and ci I arguments tiave been raised by bolti sides on their respective versi(jns of ! II the meaning and the ettect oi" the status quo order daL"G(.l l.!).7..-?.01I i ' ! i. passed by the Supreme'Court. It is also very a|:ipai ent, ttiat tlie mi.ianinc) I sought to be attributed by both sides as to .the implication :o(" the saii.l : status quo order, is diametrically opposed lo each ottier. Mot only this, boMi si(.les are at a tangeiit on tlie Pacturn oP tlie-pendency or ollicirwise oP • WJ'.(c) '1743/201X,.rr25a/20J.X Sr. conniicl.eilmsl.ters Page 7.'i uf :J'<f interim applications filed ijePore Supreme Court Ijy t)olli, I : applicants/vendors and the respondent/IMDI^C, Tor clariPicaljons; on wtiici'i • afoi'esaid oixler came to - ije i.iassed as it is stand r.ii" tite . ; respondent/i\IDI"^IC tliat aforesaid applications were not disi'iosecl of I wliile passing the order dated 15.7.2011. The pai'ties are poles aparl; on question of import of the stati.is quo order, and effect of the ' observations made" by tiie Supreme Court in ttie case of Caiudci ' KsLtTiCsuprcO, as I'egards the. approval of NDMC scheme: I'hey ai'c al.sc.) at j " • • i locjgeiheads on cofnposition of the acljudicatory mechanism in tlie i IMIDI^'IC juiisdiction and the rnaiiner of its functioning, as also ttie identity ; of tfie scheme vvfiich is valid'ly operating in tfie NDMC areas foV" regulnl.ing urban street vending, wtiich fiad all been subject n'latter of considei ation before Supreme Court in aforesaid case. 'ITie other i.'-isues ; agitated by the parties-, starting from interpretation of liie vaiious ^ observationsmade by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgnicHit,..1,0" I • the formulation of ttie sctieme as approved by the Supreme Couri. in the I • I case of Sudliir Madan', fsupra), to the coinposition of the dispute.s' , redressal i"necl"ianisrn and its validity as also the n'leaning of the '^l.alu.s i quo order, ai'e all iii a turmoil as both ttie parties liave stouliy defended ! tfieii" respective stands which are completely at vailance witli eac.h Dther. i _ ' • I The only .conimon ground stiared by the parties is the factum of pasr.ing I of the recent judgment dated 08.10.201(.] in tlie case of Gaiiidg .Kam(supra,)and tfie subsequent status quo order dated 15.7.20.1.1jiassed 525^f/2aix & car,neci:ed msfJers • . Pnt/e 25 o/" # by Ll'ie Supreme Lourt. . . . •

¶29Tlie roLinlainheacl of the dispute in tiie 'preseril; cnse-s l;llei oli.n e remains tlie stdtus quo order dated 15,7.20.1.1 passed by the Supreme Court. Tlie issue, which is sougtit to be agitated bePore ttiis Coiiit i<^: l.hal tiavinq regard to the status q.uo order, whether a stay order ougiit to lie granted by this Couit in favour ot tlie petitioners/vendors as prayed fur by. tlieiTi, iirespective-of their legal status, thus foibiddiiiq Mie respondent/NDMC fron'i ttireatening' and/or removing tliem from I.lie different, sites occupied by tliem in the JMDMC ai^eas. In ottier words,, tlii.s • Court is being called upon to'examine tue meaning, scope and elfect of statLis quo order ctated

15.07.201;'.. Oii the question of Ik.iw l.o ascertain tlie implication of a status qu-. order passed-by a court, in Ihe. case oF Messrs Bharat Coking Coal.LimiteJ fsupra), it'was observed l.)y l.lie Supi'eme Court tliat tlie-expression, 'stai'us c|uo' is undoubtedly a lerm of ambiguity and at.; times, gives rise to doul.it-and difficulty and in c.ase any party has any doubt -on ttie n|Teaninq and tlie effect of the slatus (|ui) oi-der, the. proper course for such a parfv would be to appi'oa.ch (lie t.;()url' ' tiiat had passed tlie statirs quo order, to •-:;e3elf-..clarifications. ' ...

¶30hi the case at tiand, wfiile seel<ing ir) licle ttie wave^cif llie aft)re,';ai(I status quo orclei', particis have i:;.hri.:,p.n to overh.iok: ori-e inipoii.aiil factor, wliicti is ttiat a status quo order operates on botli sidf?'-;. Ihe , Supreme Court has passed orders requiring both sides to maintain status •W.P4C) 47^}3/,201.K52-5:^!y20XXa. conn<icied,U3UBrs / Fnge 20of 2B • % quo. Once sucli an order of Itie Siipren-ie Court is on record,

1.1)0- .sc-not only binds all the parties to the adjudicati.on, and all the parties, civil or judicial who are required to act in accordance with ttie said ordoi s, huL it exjuaily binds the l-iiqh Court I'roirr interfering \A/ith such an oi tlei', as tlic said order has been passed in litigations before the highesl; Coui tof the land-.

3.1. The orders of the• Suprei'ne Courb are on record. The status quo order is a clear signal to the hligtr Court as well, to avoid grariLing' any. order-, ii'icluding an interim order, when tfie Supreme Courl: has (.:lirecl.e(.l. for status quo to be n'laint'ained. In sucfi cii'cunisfances, if tliis Court was to grant a stay order in favour of the |3etitioners/vendurs arrayed befuie it, it would be tantan-iount to negadng the orders of tfie Si.ii'.iiemriCourt, wtiich require the parties to iriairitain status quo pendiriq enactment of appi'opriate legislation. If either of the parties were unclear alu.nit the inte;ipi elation of the status quo order, il: was for tti.em to fiave applied to l:he Supreme Court for-clarifications thereof. •Additionally, tlie leliance .placed by the petitioners/vendors on tfie Special ProvisionsAct se.eking .interim legal sanctity to the placement of goods -by tliem on pavements, l.jy terming it as, encroacfin-ient/unaLithorized use, a.s lecognized under the said Act and their contention that ttie Suprcime.- , Court had recognized.thefact that the Special ProvisionsAct is the only • ^ Ceniral law having primacy over otherStatutes, are also mati.ers ttial the f.V.P.(C) 5254/2011 S, :cQm,sct^c> P'/nye 27 itf 2S • P^au-ne^/vendorsought to have placed before the Supreme Com, while seeking clarificationsof the status quo order. It would i.herefure he : advisable for the |3etltionei-s/vendursas also the respondent/IMni>l(:[,, appi-oach the Supreme Court and mal<e their submissions 11,ere ns regards ttieir grievances. However, as iMth parties insisi.ed thai Iheir arguments be taken note of and their suliinissionsbe plar:ed on ler.oid, ; some pains I'lave been tnken to do the needtLil.

¶32In view of the aforesaidfacts and circum.stances,this Con.I of , opinion that n: wlii ,.6t be appropriatelor it to grantstay orders in Ihe fare of the status quo order dated 15.07.20.11 passed by the .'.Jupren.e. ,.nrl. It rs i-eil:eratedthat any such order-shall be an arrti-thesisto tiie of the Supr-emeCourt, which must be respectedboth, in letter^anri .spirit. In such circumstances,the pr-eserrt pebtrons are disposed of by d,.:lining « gr ant of any irnteiam o,-de,-s to the petitioners. However, lil:",r,.yis .." aul.ed to both the parties to apply to the StrpremeCourt for a clarifir::atio,)of thr:. status quo orxler da-ted .15.07.2011 passed i,-, the case of tloinda. Ifeun (supra).. Tl-re partiesare left to l.->eai-their-own costs. .Ill- •. - . - OCTOEI{,-^;X ( 201 x (IHUIMIA IICO)|liill..I) rid-) ' JUt.iGil.' Pptgf. JS yfi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 T vw.r.ivii 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. 526^/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, SiQ2/2Qll. 6107/2011, 6108/211. 6114/2011. 6115/2011, 6116/2011, 6117/2011. 6118/2011, 6119/2011, 6120/2011, 6121/2011. 6122/2011. 6123/2011, 6144/2011, 6250/2011. 6270/2011. 6271/2011. 6449/2011. 6527/2011. 6528/2011. 6529/2011, 6530/2011. 6531/2011, 6532/2011. 6533/2011, 6534/2011. 6538/2011. 6555/2011, 6667/2011, 6668/2011, 6669/2011. 6670/2011. 6684/2011, 6701/2011, 5173/2011, 4739/2011" 5046/2011. 5051/2011, 5157/2011. 4649/2011, 4722/2011. 2601/2011. 2602/2011. 3052/2011. 3181/2011, 3185/2011. 3189/2011. 3196/2011. 4340/2011. 4342/2011, 4343/2011. 4344/2011. 4345/2011, 4349/2011. 4350/2011, 4352/2011, 4354/2011. 4356/2011. 4358/2011. 4359/2011. 4360/2011. 4361/2011. 4362/2011. 4363/2011. 4364/2011. 4365/2011. 4366/2011. 4367/2011. 4368/2011. 4369/2011. 4370/2011. 4371/2011. 4372/2011. 4373/2011. 4374/2011, 4375/2011. 4377/2011" 4387/2011. 4388/2011. 4389/2011, 4391/2011. 4392/2011. 4393/2011. 4395/2011. 4396/2011. -21398/2011. 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} 4347/2011 and connected mstters 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. t- 5063/2011, 5089/2011, 5099/2011, 5114/2011. 5115/2011. 5117/2011,—5129/2011, 5139/2011, 5144/2011. 6708/2011. 6799/2011, 6824/2011, 6825/2011, 6826/2011. 6827/2Q11. 6896/2011^—6901/2011. 6902/2011. 6903/2011. 6904/2011. 6905/2011, 6906/2011. 6907/2011. 6908/2011. 6909/2011. 6910/2011, 6917/2011. 6919/2011. 6920/2011. 6921/2011. 6922/2011. 6932/2011 and 5420/2011 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) 4510/2011 SANJAY Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4650/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4651/2011 AMAR NATH SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4827/2011 GANESH PRASAD Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4923/2011 BHUPALSINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5024/2011 SURENDERSINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5028/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4775/2011 RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5247/2011 RAM DASS Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5254/2011 VISHAMBARJHA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5255/2011 DINESH KUMAR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5257/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5258/2011 RAJESH CGUPTA AND ORS. Petitionersin W,P.(C) 5261/2011 LAKHPATIAND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5262/2011 SOHAN LAL AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5263/2011 Petitioner in 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 \A/.P.(C)5402/2011 RINKU KUMAR GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5403/2011 HARJEET KAUR Petitionerin W.P.(C) 540