Pawan Kumar v. Ndmc and Ors

judgment. • A. To give a brief background of the. dispute, learned ciJLinsel foi the respondent/N.DMC walked this Court through) some prorninent decisions of' l.l'ie Supreme Court rendered from time to time, whi.cti relate to •|.:invemeiit WV.p-.(CJ -^-743/2011, S254/.2ai:l & conneciBd niatxers 4-i.rC 2f-^ • • squaliters/1-1awkers, starting Prorn the decision in the case ol\SoUDn .blliyh : vs::.MDMC.,&Oi:s. reported as (199ie) 2SCC 727, the interim oide.'dated i

03.03.2006 -passed by the Supreme Court in; VWJP..(C)' ;il699/.:IL«37 . • ..entitled Sudhir Madan Ors. vs. tlie final'judgmentin the ca.so ut 1 . c-,,Hhir Marian fsuoral reported as (2009) 17 SCC 597' and .lasi.ly, the judgmentdated 08.10.^010passed in the case ot Gaii]da..llani.(suprq). :. 5. I.earned counsel for thie respondent/NQMCvehementlyopposed'tlie prayer oP the petitioners/vendors'Tor graiit oP interim orders lesti.-n the respondent/NDiviCr|rom removing then") Prom tlie sites occupied, i' tPiern till the enactrnervt oP an appropriate legislation, in tei ms nl tin.. r directions issued by -the Supreme Court m the; case oP Cainda .Kai)] ' fsupra). She particularly rePerred to' the o.bservations made i)y the i Supreme Court in'paras 40 and -I J oP the judgmentin tPie cqse oP bodaij, Siiiqh Xsyi-iraL which dealt-with die immediate eviction oP unanthru i-7.etl i: squatters/hawkersand laid emphasison tPie.Pact tliat in tPie said c.ase, the Supreme Court had directed reniovaPoP unauthorizedsqual.teis/hawkei'.s without awaiting Pinal allotment•Q.P sites.to be allotted to eligibleclaimant.', at the places recommended by tPie Thareja ComiT)il:teeor suggested by the NPJMC. • • ' • . .

¶6Again, in tlie interim order dated 03.03.2.00G passed in Sydliir "Madan's case fsupral, the Pollowiiig observation .made by the .':-.iipiT:me Court was highlighted by-'the counsel Por the, |-,espondenl;/l\l[:.'MC:•• • '•'(CJ 4743/2011, 5254/2011 a connecXad rrTaHe/s ' •' *'<' l-'Y. _/ "While we undertake this ex'fercise, we diiec.t.Lhe Authorities to see to it that those persons/ who aie •carrying on hawl<ing activities or. who are squaiiting oii public land .without any authority, even-in accoiclan(..c with the present day scheme in Porce, are reinovcM. rorthwith-. This includes uinauthorized hawking, squatting,on public streets, Pootp'aths and public [laiks, includingplayground.We direct.tihe'Delhi /-Ndrninistration to take steps, immediatelyin collalborationwith MLD niu NDKC with necessary assistance!; From Delhi I'olice to clear the roads, streets, Pootpaths, paij<s etc. by unauthorized occupantsVsquatters/hawkers." •

¶7/As -to the judgriTent dated 17.05.2007 rendered in tlie case oP .Sudhjj;,.MacJan._Csj-il2raLmuch emphasis, was laid by the counsel. Por tire respondent/MDMC on paras 28 to 30 and 35", which are lepruducei^l liereinbelow for ready rePercnce:- "28. The ;New Delhi Municipal Committee has al.so su.brnitted its Scheme. We have considered the Sclieme submitted bePore us.''The area whicPi-Pallsunder NDNL-does not create problems such as those in tl'ie:area.s _ • • under MCD. However, in the said Scheme rePerencc lias been made to persons who. do not Piave permission • under Section 22.5 or licence under Section 330 oP.the MDMC Act, 1994 but who are unauthorisedly coiitinuiiig to cai'ry on busin.ess as tiawk.ers/streetvendors. Il.i.ey have been descrlb6d.-as those who are "l:olerated" in the .IMDI^IC area. We PaiP to understaind why any person wlio violates the law should be tolerated-. Eitlier they sliould •be compelled,to'obey tPie law or the law'may be suitably aiTiended, iP it is Pound to creat,e undue Piardsliip. llie • problems need to be addressed b.y-the legislatui'e oi' the ruleiTiakiiig•authority. We, therePore, observe that iP il is Pelt that the persons who Pall in tPiis category lequire • • " special protection, tPie Act ri^iay Ije suitably an'iended to cover their cases or else number oP sucPi, illegal squatters in ay increase Prom tim;e to time. VU.F.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected luatfers • . ' ^ - " . Pai;e ff 2n. - ) •29-There has been no seiious oliijeclion l:o Lite Sclieme sLibrnitCed.by NDMC wliich is a comprehensive scheM)^|;. Certain directions have, however, been sought for rroin this Court. We approve the Scheme subnTitteiJ by

¶30It is submitted before us tliat the Schen'ies which have been approved by this Couirt mlist be suljiect to any Act or rules ttiat may be framed in consonancewil.ii National Policy on Urban Street Vendors. J.t gop.s without saying that we have approved the Schenics as framed by MCD and NDMC. If the legislature intervene.? and' fran'ies another scheme or regulations governing such Schemes, that , wil'l ' certainly supersede IJie •5chen-)es prepared by MCD and-NDMC. It is well settled ttiat any administrative action is, always subject to law •that may be framed by the coimpetent legislature.

¶35Subject to the aforesaid rniodifications/ctiangcs in the Schemes submitted .by MCp ?ncl NDMC, the sanie ai-e-approved. The said authdiities shall now tal<c appropriate steps td implement:the Scheme forthwith. In case of any difficulty faced by them in irn|"jlementing the .schenies, they shall liave the liberty to apply to tliis Court." " '

¶8Lastly, in the refcent judgment in the case of GalJida.Kg;ni.,.(su learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC specifically relied uix'ji'i paras 30, 32, 50 to 66 to state that the Supreme Court-was conscious of titc fact that a-structured regulation and legislation is urgently retjuiicd i.u . control and regulate the fundamental right of hawking. Slie also |)ointed • out that three tier disputes redressal mecliani.sm set out in affidavit filed b'y tlie then Chairperson of tlie NDMC was taken, note of by tti'e Supreme Court in para 72 ofttie afoi'esaid judgment aiid in pnra 73, it was then observed as below:- ' ' ' W.P.(CJ 4743/.20:ilj., 5254/2011 Si conne.cXed mailers ' ' /'-'age. 7 itf :U1 "73. In paragraph 12 of the'afficlBvitit has Ijeen sl.;al;erl lihal: there slyiall be ah Appellate;/Authority whicli sliall attend to. the reclressal of grievances of squattei .s, hawkers, traders, residents or any other person by hearing appeals against the decision of the Vending Committee (l^ain): Paragraph 12 of tfiat affidavit is sot out below:- There. shall .'be an Appellate.Authoitty. On the forwarding ,of petitions received by ,Chairperson, ' this AuthoHty shall attend l.o redressal ' of grievances o!f squatters, liawkers, • traders, residents' or any other person. Hie •Authority shall also hear appeals against Ihe decision'of Vending Committee (Main). Decision.s of this Authorityunless challenged befoi'e a l-ligher Forum or in any ConipetehtCourt, sfiall be linal. This Authority sfiall be initially headed by a person appointed by tl'ie•Chairperson having at least .10 years legal or judicial background.. There can bo more than one n'len'iber in this Autfiority." g.' After .making the aforesaid observatio,ns,in paras 74 to /(:• t)f the •judgment, the SupremeCourt went on to observe as below-;- . ."74. .In the said affidavit, which was affirmed l;,iefoie .• this Court on 24^'^ August, 2010:'it has been stated that NDMC si'iall comply with tlie orders wliich would be • passed by the acljudicatorymechanisf'ncontemplatedim the scheme and which has be.en; apj^roved by this Couit . for the NDMC area,'"uiiless such Orders'ai"e made si.ibjecl: matter of cliallenge before a higfier foi'i.im or-in any-- other competent Court.

¶75In view of such scliemes; tfie. hawl<ers, squall.ei s and vendors must abide by .the Dispute f^edressal scheme mentioned above. There should not be any direct approach to this Coui't by. way of i^i'esh petition oi' lAvS, bypassii'ig tlie Dispute Fledi'essal Media pi'ovided in i;he scfierne. W.P.CC)^ ^74-3/201X, 5254/2011 connected mailers O irj

¶76However, before 30'-''June,' 2011, l:he appropriafe Gove-nnienI: is .to enact a law o'n tlie'basis of tlie I3ill rnent.oned above, or on tlie basis of any arnencinienl: ^ , tliereof so that, the hawlcers R-iay -preciseiy ioiow the contours of tlieir.rights."

¶10It was thus sought to he contended on betialf,-oj Ute • respondent/lMIDI^'ICthat there can be no vacuum as far as legulatinn of trade of street hawl<ei's./vend0rsin the IMIDi^G jurisdiction is concernei.i onci the failure on the part of the legislature to abide by the timeline set oul: by tine Sliprerne Court in the case of Gaind:a Pxam (supra), by pulj.i place a statute on or before 30.06.2011, cannot'be iriterpretei.lby the • petitionfers/vendofs to mean that they .. can continue their tiai.ie unhindered at any place of their choice in the IMDMC juri.sdi(::tion, in an unregulated manner and without an\| obstruction or objection honi the •'mDI'/IC. . • • • , • ' • ' .

¶11Learned counsel foi" the respoiidenl;/i\ll3l^'ic.particularly refeired ;lo paras 74 and 75 of tfie aforesaid Judgment to state that the disr)i.||te redressai scheme, noticed by the Supreme Court-in para 7b was the orie ••.•.V " • tliat was legally functioning in IMDi'^'IC Jurisdiction aiid.wliich was tal<:en note of by the Court in the preceding para 7,4. In other words, slie stated that the scheme as set out in the affidavit elated 24.00.2010,. Hied'by tlien Chairperson of IMDMC before the Stip.i'enie Court in Gaiiidci loam's 'ca.se ..(supra)., was the one which was finally appi'bved by the .Supreme Court. Stie furtlier submitted tliat assuming,, without admitting, l;hal: l.iie in . wr.P.(C) '^y43/7.0i:i, 52S-<l/201.t 8, catin^.d.ed insl.ters • 9 o/''.7K dispute redressalscl-ieme'setout by the IMDI^>IC had lapsed on 30.(5.vr)J.1, as clainVed by the petitioners,pen the NDNC Act provides an adequate fallback to ensure orderly rnaragement oP vendor in the area. .'.>iieLili(, referencewas made in this regard• to the provisionscontained in .sci.tion;', 221; 224, Z25 and ,226 of the said Act. -

¶12It w'as further argued by the counsel for the i'espondent/l\ll.)M(.tlidt tlie applicationfiled by, the IMDMC before the, Supreme Court in .luly'^tH I. praying, inter alia extension of time to regulate liawkers/squatteis in tire NDMC area, as per the sctierne mentioned in the judgmentin Ggiiidci, i-7am's case fsuoral, till the enactment of a Jaw by,the legislature in th.it regard, had not yet been finally disposed ofMjy the Supreme Louit at the time of passing of the stalius 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/NDMC:fiiorn granting lehbazari rights to. the winners of the' lucky draw of lots foir allotment, which-was to lie held on

12.05.2011-or any date theireafter, was also per.n.ling consideration before the Suprenie Court. Hence, no finality could be attached to the order dated

15.7.2011 whiclrcan only be consi(.leied an interim measure'tifl the final .disposal of the? aforesaid applications or the enactment of a legislation. f

¶13On merits, learned counsel for the respondent/NI^MC referred to l.he affidavit dated

01.08.2011 filed by tlie Director (Enforcement), l\ir)l^''l(.":,- y\I.P.(C)

4.743/2011, 5254/2011 a connecXed matters ' Page. .U.f isf 2H •\ . wherein it was stated tiiat pursuant to the'public notice issued Ir/ tlu,; NDMC inviting applications under the NQMC Urban Street Vending Scheme in the year 2007, the i4pondent/ND.MC had received ^Id67 applications.Tire documents required by the applicants for registiation under the ScheiTre included a prooP oP age/docurnsntaryproot/ariidavit Tor the purpose oP ann.Qal i.ncoirie, proof of residence, proof msii.i.'p'.'if special•categorieslike handicapped,Kashmiri migiapts etc. and pioi.f lI scpjatting in the NDMC area, if any. In par.-p 4 of the aforesaid aflMlavjJ;, the following criteria appfoved/adoptedby the Vending Cominili.ee to shortlist the eligible applicants is set out:- ' "4. That the criteria ap|Troved/a|doptedby the Vending Committee to shortlist tlie eliigible applicants is as under;- • • .

(i) Tine applicants should be resident of Dellii. witii.d"iis name registered ,in electoral rolls as per abstract el photo E-Roll or.lERO certificate. ' '' • • .> . (ii) The applicantshould be a nhajer, viz. witli over If. years of age as per .valid biirth certificate or age • certificate .or school cerdficate et;c.

(iii) The appli-cant should be-a, needy as per income . records of' ibC: (Reve,nue) or as 'vulnerability recorcts ol Government of NCT of Delhi (Sa.majik Suvidlia Sarigam; vulnerable and most vulne:rable category).

(iv) Tlie apTjIicant should be registered as per NDMi.. Street Vendors Scheme. The policy verilication of i.lie applicant sho.ujd be available. • , * •

(v) The applicant or his dependent .famjly member should not be employed or sficiuld 'not fiave any other tehbazari/yending or any othe.r bi.isiness premises in fjelhi as per record verification of NDMC/MCD. Vir.P.CO 4743/Z01:S./5254/20.t'X Si connecied maCHers ' . Page .11 of 2f( i (\/,i) Preference will be given Lo applicants who.-are : physically handicapped or widoyvs: or senior above 60 .years •or Kashmiri, nnigrants or SC./bI (necessary certiPicate to be sub;rnitted and relaxation ! , . rriay be given in the above criterig)." • . ' - '

¶14/-\s per the respondent/NDi^lC, the cptegoryrwise list oi eliyil.ilc 1 • shortlisted applicants in.terms-of the aforesaid criteri-a totalled;to Jfi/H .applicants. The affidavit dated

01.08.2011 states' •that t!,e : ,respondent/NDMChas identified 183 new spaces, in addition to tlu-! . ; remainingspaces Identifiedby the Tjiareja Ciommitteeiivtlie Nt)M(... area, • which were available' for allotment, thus taking the total number of availablespaces to 386. ' It was furtherstated that due to facl.ors like de-listincj of the Parliament Street on' security grounds, construction.()( flyovers andM^letroStationsat various locatilonsin the IWDML. juiisdictioii,. the number of authorized.teA/Zjazar/-squattershas changed from .I'l.'i-l.u : 404 in number. The number of applicants, who'' the respondent/NDMC... , ..! claims, are vending unauthorisedlyat Connaught.Place, Sai-ojini Mnyai, . • Parliament Street and Janpath areas and ;in whose, favour, slal.ub qua orders are operating,is stated to be-323 in number. The affidavitasserts • that simply because the names of the petitioners,who are registereilwilh ; tlie IMDMC, figure in the eligibility list drawn by tlie res|.')ornJent/l\lt)M(..., cannot be treated as proof'of their regularly vending in tl'ie NDM(... area and nor does it confer on them any enforceable vested rigfit to ensure a ; vending space for thern in thd IMDMC area, wHiciV is directly dependenl:on i WJ^\(C) 5254/2011 Si connecfiBd msl:tei\s ' ' Ffige 12 itf 2(? Ihe number of spaces available. Thus, il: was.contendedthai, neither Uu-possessionof any number of challans, nor the absence thereof can inakei ;• a difference, for the reason that challans cannofform the basrs for the i • ' ' ' '; \ ; petitioners to claim any vested legal right to squat,at a given s|:.ia(.e. IS.. Counsel for the res^ondent/NDMC o.sserted that Liie |ne.';ent ' petitions are not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners liave an equally efficacious alternate remedy of, approaching tlie a|)pell<.ite. authority constituted by the Chairperson, IMDMC, for redressal ol their grievances and failure on their part to hqve approached the Vending Committee is not on'account of the fact tfiat.tlie said Committee in(;luding the appellateauthorityis not functioning,but because they liave lound it i rhore convenient to bypass tfie aforesaid forum and approach tliis (...ouil: directly, which is not-permissible.. -She stajted that extensive moasure.s have been taken by the respondent/MIDMCto constitute tfie adjui.licni.oiy rnecliani&i-n by way of a three tier system in the following manner: -

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

¶2Vending Sub-Comm,it|;ee (Meath and Hygiene) and

¶3Vending Sub-CoiT)mittee (Enforcement).••

¶16She stated that tfie creation' of the aforesaid three Vefidiny .Sul.)-- Committees, V/ending Cornri'iittee

(Main), as also of tlie ap|.~jellate. authoril y whicli was constituted to redress girievanee's of tfie si|iiatl.er.';, hawkers, tradjfers, residents or any other person against the (lci.i.si(in of W.P.fCJ 4743/2011^

52.54/2.0X1. fft coiinecCed lUsiiCe/s, Ps?ije 13 (1^.70 •i-f • the Vending Committee(l^lain),;was.placedberore the Supieme Coiiit lui considerationand the said three tier adjudicatory mechanisni was duly apj^rovedin the judgment of Ga'inda Ram fsuipra). j_7; 'Per contra, learned counsels tor tl'iie petitioners/vendois, who appeared on diPterent dates, vehemently opposed the aforesaid stand taffen by the responden.t/MDl^Cand asserted that the scheme Hoaled hy ; '.thfe respondent/MDMC.rbr._regulating vending activities in its jurisdict had lapsed on 30-06.2011in the absence oT the enactment oP a legist as per directionsoP the^SLipremeCourt in tl'ie case of Ga1Qjda..Ran,.!..(suijr.a). .• and-as on date, there is no^ scheme in exislieiice. U; was-carivassed l.fiat the implication of the aforesaid order. of! c7(./o passed l)y the : • Supreme Court on 15.07.2011 can only.mean that irrespective of the fact whether the'.squatting is legal or illegal,- the sa.n'ie be perniittetl , to 'I continue' on an 'as is where, is' basis, and sucli status quo is l.-o he I iriaintained by all the parties.till a law is framed by. the legislature.

¶18Mr. B.B.. Sawfiney, Sr. Advocate •• apinearing loi-Ihe petitioners/vendors submitted that in the case of Gainda RaiJiisiipra.), V-, Supreme Court had directed that tfie approprfate government .niusl. enaL;t a law on'br before 30.06.2011 so tfiat tfieM-iawicc^rs may rji'ecisely know the: contours of-their rights, fience dispute redressal n'ier:hnni.sin provided for in the scheme mentioned in tl'ie aforesaid -judgnieni: could operate only upto 30;05.2011 and thereafter, tfie said scl-)e.nK: would I in/.p. 4743/2011^ 5254/2011 Si conneclled matters Fnye 14 of 2'li! automaticallystand lapsed. He stated that no other interpretationcan bti given to tine oWer dated ;L5.07.CZ011,directingmaintenanceol'sl:^l:u:-;quo, ,in vieworthe qtialirying-words, "as it is obtaining1:oday^ He argued lh,:t if the-scheme was continuing to operate,:as claimed by tht.. If.amed counsel for the respondent/NDMC,then there was no good reason foi' the respondent/NDMCto have refrainetl.Prom holding a draw oT lols, which was slated Por the same day, i.e., :l 5.07.2011,and that Pact orU.c maiter . is that even the, respondent/NpMChad understood the sLbLus quo order - to mean that there is no'schemein.placeaPter 30.6.2011, Poi l.he ie."i.'-.oii that in para 68 of the aPoresaid judgment in the case oP Gainda.,.Kd.ltt CsLiOraJ, all the writ petitionsand the interinn applicationsPiled hePore the SupremeCourt were disposed,oPwith clear ajnd speciPicdirectionslhat the problem oP' hawking ,and street vending :could be regulated by the •schemes framed by; the MDMC at'id MCD oply upto.30.06.20:11 and nut . thereaPter. It was asserted on' behalP oP the petiUoners/vendois tl :al as on date, the directions'oP the Supreme Court that sCcitus (]U<:i \s lo be n-iaintained.by the parties can only be given one interpretation,which is lhat till a .law is ultimatelyenacted by th-fe Parliament,irrespectiveoP IhrMi legal status, all the petitioners/vendorswould be perrnitteil to c( squatting/hawking at'the sites that have beq:n occupied by tPiern. 11 a ;l.9. TnsoPar as the composition oP the dispute redressal mecl s concerned, learned Senior Advocate Por tine petitioners siiliiililte.d thai contrary to tl'ie understanding oP tPie respondent/NDMC^, the .'••.cJienie W.F.(C)4743/2011, 5254/20.11 &connecLedtna!:l:ers, • ' ' X°' vf , reproducedat paras 72 and 73 in-thejudgmentin the case of' Gaiiicla Kain (supra), was not the one which was actually,.recognized by the Su|.)renle : Court, and rather it is the dispute redressal scherne'meiMtionedin pai'a 7.'j or the aforesaid judgment-i.e., "a scheme for urban street vendois lor..^ . NDMC area as formulated in year .2006, wl')iclT was ultimately-approved by the Supreme Co.urt on 17..05.2007, in tfie case of budliiL , Madap (sup.r.aL which is tlie scheme vvhicl'i iPinds.jVientionspecilif:rillyin the,following para 74 and is the one approved by the .Suprenie Couit. I.t was contended ttiat even otherwise, the IMational Capital 1erritory dt t.)elhi. Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 (hereinaPtei' i-ePei'red to as '.Speciiall IPiroviisiioimsAcIL'") comes to tlie rescue pT tlie-petitioner's .ror the reason that sub-clause

(2) oT ^Section 3 of tlie Special Provisions /Act inanrlales • nnaintenance of status quo ,as on O1.O1;2O0S, notwithstanding any judgment,'decree or order oP any court, in:respect oP encroaclinienl. or unautPiorized development. TPius, if was ;submitted on behalP ol live • petitioners/vendors that they.were erititled to grant oP interim proleciion. • tiirtiie enactment of a legislation to regulate ihaw-'king/vending acl.ivilies in , urban str'eets in Delhi on the basis o.F tl'ie National Policy on Url.ian .Street Vendors, 2009 Pramed on 17.06.2009 and th6 Special Provisions Act.

¶20. With rePerence to the-Special-Provisions ./Act, learned Senit /Advocate Por the ' petitioners stated that M:he phrase, "unatil.hori/.ed development" used in the dePinition clause has to .be seen iii Uie same cor)text as tPie one in which the pPirase "encroachment-" lias been dePined, W.P.(C) 47''t3 / 2011, 5254/2011 & corrrrecf.ec/ nialtiers . Paus Iff </)'' j i wherein it is mentioned that putting up oT temporary, senii-temporary oi permanentstructure for residential-use.or coirirnercialuse or ai'iy othei' use, and the placementof goods on the pavements by the petitumers•is liable'to be tel'rned as unauthorizeduse for maintainingstatus c|uc) uncJei the Special Provisions Act; IMuch emphasis was laid on tl)e: aveinicnts made by the respondent/NDMCin its interim application filed bcfuie tho SupremeCourt in Gainda flam's cose I'suBia).in July 2011, to sui:)mitthul. the respondent/NDMCitself had stated In the said application-that IJie scheme had lapsed and therefore, the only interpretationtliat can be given to the sCalxis quo order passed by the Supreme e.our| on

15.07.2011 call be that no scheme wouldj exist after 30.0f.'.2.(.i,1.1 •and thus, the benefitof the Special Provisions.Act ought to be extended L-o the petitioners. He. submitted that the phrase .'street vendors' has been clearly.defined under the National Policy on'Urban Street Vendor's,/iOf)'..). Reliance was..placed in the case of Patri Vvapar MandaLXl^lll-(iiQ.y-'r.b). .V MCD Town Hall Si Ors. reported as (2009) 12 SCC 475 and the provisions of the Special Provisions AvCt to submit ttiat even llie .Supicme Court had recognized the fact that tlie S.pecial Provisions Act is tlie only ••Centi'al law governing the field and it wouid'have primacy ovei nlhe.r Statutes and administrative orders. It is thus,stated ttiat the prf.ivisiuns of the NDMC Act cannot be invoi<ed by the respondent/NDMC as tlie said Avct is not in consonance vyith Article 96 of the Constitution of .im.lla and furthermore, ' tfie Special Provisions Act being valid till end (.)f y\i--P.(CJ,4743/2dll, 5254/2011 co/i/ieclied mBlXerq Page l 7 of December.2011,no orders In derogationor the provisionsoP the s.-^id Ad. can be passed. • , ' . 21-Mr. S-K. -Tripathi/ /Advocate appearing Tor some of |Uie petitio.ners/vendorssought to embellisli bhe submissionsoP Ivir.Sowlincy, Sr.VAdvoca'te and relied on the orders' passed in V\\f"IP.(Cj :it449/.29ii.ll..ll. entitled Mohcl. Ismail vs. NDMC .8. Ors. to urge that tlie "Ar.po.Hal.e, Authority" constituted under the dispute r(k.lre'ssai mechaniym lor the-NDMC area, I'las not been functioning, which) fact he stated is boi ne owl (Toii-i a perusal oP the, order ^dated 08:03.2011 passed in the nrnresai:d' case, wherein the Court took n,otice oP the claim oP-tPie petit.ioner/vcn(.lor therein-to the ePPect that inspite oP oiders passed by tlie Appellate. Authority allowing squatting at a particular site, till a Pinal deterniinntion by the Vending Committee,as to his eligibiiit|y;the .respondent/MI,)MC.am.l the police were disturbing his activities. In the aPoresaid ordei', tlie s(:atement oP. the, counsel Por the respondenit/NDMC yvas recordec.l to lhe ePPect that the appellate authority, whose-order was being relied upon by' the petitioner thei'ein;. was constituted initially PortPie MCD areas and.later started functioning-Por tPi-e NDMC areas as .well ,Ppr ti'je reason that at that tiiTie, there was no separate.appellate autlicjrity Por tPie MDMIC aiens, l.ii.it subsequently,, in accordance witPi the scherne approved by tlie .!:,iupreir)e Court, Chairperson,. NDMC had' consUituLed a separate • apiMollalc autl'iority . Por •the NDMC areas. I'tierePqre,' appellate autlioi ity appointed earlier had ceased to liave jurisdiction qua the KipMIC area;-. II W.P.(CJ 47'-<l3/2011, S254/20IX Si cOnnecf:€:d niaUers- . ' Paije.lOoflB - •i •.: L h\ was thus contended on behalP'oP the . pfetitioners/vendors-l.l'ial the .aforesaid order clearly indicates that? the appellate authority in the areas is not Functioning.

¶22Reliance was also placed on the n'linutes oT the nieeting of tlie. \/ending Committeedated 11.03,2010,to clajm that it the fact oP whether there wa.s actual squatting/vendirigwas vei iried by the Committee and il the names of ttie petitioners/v.endorsfigured;in the eligibilitylis.t |-.)i-epaiei I by the respondent/NDMCfor holding the dravV of lots,' then it did not lie' in ttie mouth of the respOndent/NDMCto claim that the petil:ioners, who had been verified' and found., to be eligible, \A/ere not entitled ' to '.si|uat at various sites in the NDMC area after 30.06.2011.

¶23Iri rebuttal, counsel for resp6ndent/t\IDMC disunited tfie .. contentions of the petitioners/vendors and'while reiterating tier eaiiiei" submissions, asserted that petitionei's did not have ai.iy legally I enforceable right, created on the basis of; the eligibility' list drawn by NDMC, for claiming, grant of interini oi'dersdn ttieir favour'. .Sl).e a(,|ain . referred to paras 68, 69, 75, 76 and 78 of ittie judgment in tlie of • G.aindq Ram fsupra); to' emptiasize ttiat when aforesaid paras ni'e read collectively, it is clear ttiat the , pGtitioners cannot claim, an entitlement to any interim ordei"S as souglit.by them ir) tlie |)ie.senf proceedings. .She ' fui'ther stated,., that e,ven otl'ierwise, ttie .S|)ei::iril Provisions Act relied .upon by petitioners' has duly recogni/reil m.r.CCJ ^7'43/2(fll, 5254/ZVi.S. {Ik cqunecied Fa.ye'.J..y' /I s ! schemes prepared by the.local-authorities in itlieJMationalCapital I'eirilury of" Delhi for regulation oP urban striset vendors. /Fo substantiate the sai(j subrn,ission, she drew the attention of this Coui't to the preanible oP the I aPoresaid /Act, which mentions the Pact that all the-schemes prepnred t)v local authorities in National ,Ca|iital Territory oP ijelhi, Por . regulation of urban street vendors in accordpn'ce witli the National t'oliry on Urbap Street Vendors, 2009 and the Master Plan Por Dellii Z02I, have . been implemented and Purther that more time is i'er.|uired Por |)ropei-implementation oP the schemes-regarding' liawkers and urban .sl.reet vendo^'-s. • , , ' •

¶24•';A specific rePerence was made by learned counsel Pui" tlie respo.ndent/NDMC to Section 2(l)(c) of the .Special Provisions Act, wtiich t defines phrase "encroachment" to claini-i that it does not cover' I • petitionei's herein, who ai'e squatters. FLirther rePerence was made to the provision of Section" 3 of the Special Provisions /-\ct, wliich contains n non obstante clause, to state lihah status quo with regard i:o ttie enGroncliment or unauthorized development as on 01.01.2006,' mentioned in iJu; said pi'ovision, was in . the context oP definition of tlie j.jlirases encroacPuTient" and "unauth6riz©;d deveropnjient" set out in tlie d.ePinitiwn clause at-Sections 2(l)(c) ai.^1 2(l)(i) respectively oP tPie .'.-^rtecial, Pi ovisions /Act and tl'ius, the peti;.i;i'Oners/vendorsdid not qualify under tin;; aforesaidenactmentPor claiming^rolectioneis none of tlie ingredientsset .• out in the piovisions oP the aforesaid enactment are found to exi.^:,t in 525^4/2011 ,co,T,tec(e./matters \ Page 2(> of 2H -v i : r • '' f case. It was submitted that the Special l^rovisions Act, whici) crime jnto • eTfect in the' year 2007 and tias been extejnded Pi'oni time to time rmcl ' ! • lastly, till December 2011, does not give peririlssion to persons l(.) i e-sl arl:, •^;ny activity once they have been removed by ttie civic rn.il liority and similarly, the Scl'teme of 2009 does not entitle, the registrants to .s(|iial. unless they have been allotted a speciPic site. In stippoit of tlie afViiesaid j _ ' . I submission, reliai|ce was place on tlie judgihientin tlie case of MC;D ys/ Gui'-rjani Jiaiir reported as (19'89) 1 SCC; 101. For tlie pui'i.n.i.qe. fjP jr ' ! " interpr-eting the n-neaning oP the phrase, "strlucture", reference \'vas mrule to the judgn'ierljt oP the Siiprerrie Court in-tlve case of •.Municijjar • Corporation of Greater Bombay •& Ors. vsJ Indian Oil Corporation Ltcj,, reported as Allfl ;1991'SC

¶686l-'or the ikirpose of undei-standii'ig l;ho expression, 'status quo', reference was madfe-to tl'ie Judgment in the case of Messrs Bharat'Cokinci Coal Limited vs. State of'Bihar B(. Ors, re|.)orl ed ns ISiSJ (Supp) SCC 394 to submit that in ordinary legal connotation, term "sL'sCus c/uo'.imiplies'the.existing state cjf things'at any given point of time.

2.5. As'for the National Policy on Url^an Stjreet .Vei'idoi's, counsel fo.r the; respondeiit/NDMC stated that both, the 200'4 policy ai'id the' 2009 poli(.:y,'. find mention in the decision of tlie Suprenie Court iii tlie case of (3ajn.,da Ps.am Csupra") and it was only after taking-into consideration said " i • • policies, did Court diredied Lfie institutionalization of ui fian "si i ni'M • vend.ing through legislation. It was furtlieif stated that at the time of 4743/2011^ !;f2S4/20J.l conneci:eiisn^Ujjrs^ • Prjge 2i of la • cleliyering the juclgmenl; dated 8.10.2010,. the Supreme Court took notice oP NCT oP Delhi Lavys (Special Provision^;) /Act, 2009, wliicl'i wa? valid Lipto

30.12..2010, apart' Prom noticing tl'ie Model Street Vendors ' . (i^rotection-,of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Veiiding) Bill, 20Uy introducer] by Government oP India, Ministry oP llousing IM IJiUan Poverty Alleviation. She .stated that riothingi new is ,now beiiig sul.)mil.l.ed by petitioners/vendor^ Pierein, Por present petiPion;; to Pie entertained Por any purpose-whatsoever andl all the grievances raised by petitionei-s can' easily" be • addre.ssed 'before . tl'ie \/o.nr.ling CorniTiittee/appellate authority under the scheme relating to ui ban slieel; vending iri the NDMC area, which Pora contirjue tO' ren'iain Punctlonal, even ' aPter .30.6.2011. ' ' • 26. TPiis Court has heard these maPters ^t length since :L 7.8.20

¶1I., on diPPerent dc3L"es. Various counseis Por Phe, petiPiorPers/vendors and U)c Standing Counsel Por tPie respondent/MDNC Piad addressed Phe t ouit. .Their respective arguments have been, taken note of. BoPPr sides Piave made strenuous ePPorts to explain what the status quo oi'der dnl.ed

15.7.2011 passed by tPie Supreme . Court in Phe case oP UaiLlda Rarnfsupra) implies. The leitmotif the airgurnenPs'addressed oti PiehalP oP the petitioners/vendors is that statLis quo order read witPi l.Pie • quaiiPying .words, "as it is obtaining today",, suPPixed to tl'ie oi'dei', can only be read to imply that as on date, i.e.,

15.7i.2011, there wa.s I'lo scheme operational in the NDMC areas to regulate yending activities and till a law IrV.P.(C) 4743/20X t, 5254/2011 ffl cbnriecl'aa' rusLCjers PBifB 22 i}f 2!f Q) is vmimately enacted by then'egis.l.ature,all tlie petitioners, irrespective of their.legal status, can continue squatting/haiwking 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/NDMC 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 hav|e been found eligible by the respondent/NDMC for being allotted specific, tehbazari spaces within the ND.MC 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/vendors'was that the Special Provisions Act would additionally come to the, rescue of the •petitioners/vendors, which also requires maintenance of status quo as existing on' 01.10.2006, till the end of December, Z'Oll.

¶27On the other hand, the'main thrust of! the arguments addressed by counsel' for respondent/NDMC wag;that as the legislature has failed to enact an appropriate legislation in.tertiis of the decision of.'the Supreme Court in the case of Gainda Ramlsupra), the subsequent order dated. 15.7.2011 directing parties to maintain the status quo as it is obtaining on the said date can only, implyj that .the state of affairs as existing on date are not to be-disturbed, untiil the rights of the parties can be finally determined through legislation. .It was submitted that while W.P,(C) 4743/ZOllr 5254/2011 & connected matters passing the status quo order on 15.07.20.1,1, the SUpreme Couil.wn.s conscious of the fact that tlie l-"'arlianien.t had yet to enact a comprehensivelegislation to regulate urbanlstreetvending and in such circumstances, it goes witi.-ioutsaying tliat ili was the intent of the Lourt that t.tie entire dispute redressal mechanismjas recognized in thej;ase of Gainda_RaniCsLil2ra.).would continue' to, reniain .in operation, so a.s lo regulate the urban street vending in.the NDNC area, till the legi.slatioji in tliab regard .is enacted. Further, it was: stressed tliat the ;-..|.)e(.:ial Provisions Act did not provide any protective umbrella to Llie |ietitii.:)nei-,s, whose squatting ^activities neittier fell under l.he delinitlon ol "encroachment", nor under "unauthorized developrneiit". Jt was fuiihei asserted that •even othei'wise pending an •appropriate legislation, tlie NDMC /-Vet wa,^ availableas afall back option) and the relevantprovisions in .the said enactment would continue to regulate street.vending oclivit.y ii) the'MDMC area and the petitioners/vendors ciould'not-claim a vested ligtil. to squat at.any site oftlneir own.

¶28Fronv the above, it is. apparent thjat arguments ai'id counter ai'qunnents tiave been rai.sed by botti sides on their respective versions of nieaning . and effect of the ' status .qiio .order date(.l t!r."/.20.1.1, passed by the Supreme "Court. It is also very apparent, tl iat the'nieaning sought to be attributed by both sides as to the irnplication of tlie said status quo oi'der, is dian'ietrically opposed tq.each ottier. Nrjt only this, •both sides are at a tangeiit on tlie factum of tlie pendency or otfierwise of W.P.(C) 4.743/2011, 5254/2011 a conneci.ecl maners Frti/e 2'/ or .y'?f -•> t .the interim applications filed before the Supreme Court by the-appfeants/A/endorsand the respondent/NDMG,for clariPication:^,on which the aforesaid order came to be passed as it ,is the stcind ol-l.hc respondent/NDMCthat the aforesaid.applicationsWere not dispo.sed ol while passingthe.order dated 15.7:2011. Tlpe parties are poles apart on the-question of import oP the status quo qrder, and the ePPect of the observations made by the Supreme Court intthe case oP ..Gamdd .Ram.(su|3i:a3.as regards the approval of NDMC scheme. They aix; also ot loggerheads on the cohiposition oP the 'adjudicatorymechanism in l.he l\lIDMC jurisdictionand the manner oP its PunCtioning, as also the idf..ntil.y of tlie schem.e'vvtiichis-v'alidlyoperating in tliie MDMG areas Por regiilal.ing urban street vending, which had all been subject matter oP consitleiai.ion before'.the Supreme Court in the aPoresajid' case. The other-issues agitated by the parties,•starting Prom 'the-interpretationoP tlie various observations made by-the Supreme Court ip tlie aPoiesaid jtidginenl, . the! PorrnuiationoP the scheme as approved by the Supi erne Court in the case oP S(.idhir Madan fsupra), to tlie qornposition of tlie .(li.spul.cs redressal-mechanism and-its validity as also the meaning ol the '-.l.dtus quo order,' are all in a turmoil as both ttie parties liave stoiilly deleiicieil their respective .stands which .are completely at variance witPi each ol.her. The only .common ground shai'ed by the paiM:ies .is tPie Pactum of pn5::.iny .of recent judgment" .dated

08.I0.20p.0 in tlie case oF Gcii.ijda .tiarnCsupria.) and the,.subsequent status quo qirclei-dated 15.7.20.1.1 pas.'-;ed 'ifC. • . W.P.(C) A743/2pilr 5254/2011 & connected niatfersj by U'le SLiprerne Lourt. • . . , . • I 29-The PounLainheacl of the dispute in lihe-.pi'esenl;.cases iJjcieluie remains status quo order dated 15.7.g(pi;L passed by Uie oui'ieine Court. The issue which is sought to be agi.tated before this L.ouit i<. I.hal tiavinq regard to th(^ stkus quo order, whether^a stay order ouylit to l.ie • granted by this Court in'favouroT the petitioners/vendorsas" I l:"'Y them, irrespective'.' of their legal • status, thus toi bidding Ilie. respondent/NDMC h-on'i threat.ening and/or reixroving them Prom l.he diPFerentsites occupied'bythem in the MDMC areas. In other words, this . Court is beinq called ujDon to exarrilire hi.e ijneaning; scope and elfect ol the status quo order dated 15.07.201;!. ^On the ,question oP huw ,l.o: ascertain tlie ihiplicationoP a status qu.. orpler passed by a i..ouit, in Ihe case r.r Mpqqrq Rharat Coking Coal.LiiriitcJ (sjupraO,it was observed l.)y Mie Supreme Court that the expression, 'stahjs quo' is undoubtedly.a-lerin (iP •ambiguity .an'd at.times, gives rise to doubt and diPPiculty ani.l in casc-^ any party has any doubt oii -the n|ieaning and :tlie ePPeci: oP l;he •5lal:u.s order, tl'ie pioper course Por such, a partv would.'be to approach thc.>. (. tliat had passed the status quo ordei", to see.f:,.clariPicatioris. •30.. ,Tn tlie case at Pignd, wiiile seeking to iiicle' the wave oP the aNii'n.sa.id status quo order, the. pai'ties have chn.^erji to' overlook one imporlanl I Pactor, which is i:hat a status quo order operates on b'otPi side;;. ' I ln-^. • Supreme Court has passed orders rec|uiring iboth sides to maintain stains •Vy.P.(C) 4743/201.1, 5254/201.1 & conrifect.erl /naff.ersj ('fiije 2ft'uf 2H quo.- Once such an •order of the Siiprenie Court is on record, the .san)e .not only binds all. the parties to the adjudiciption,and all the p'aii.ie.s, civil • or judicial-whoare required to 'act in accordance with tl-ie said ordci.s, ljuL: • . it equally binds the High Court Trorn intei'Pering VA/Jtli sucti an oi-dei-, a;; the said order has been passed in litigations bePore the higliest C.ourl: ot the larid,' , • • ; , , • 31-The orders of the-Supreme Court'ar(^ on record. The status '(|U(i ordei-is a clear signal to the hiiglr Court as well, to avoid grantiiiy any order, including an interin',i order, when the.! Supreme Court has dii ei;:tcd • for status quo to .be n'laintained: In'sucli ciiicun'istances, iP this Court was to grai'it a stay order in Pavour oP the petitioners/vendors ai rayed hePoie it, it would be tantamount to negating the orders oP the Sur.irernn (:(.)urt, ' which require, the parties-to niaintain status quo, pendiriq ena(:l;nieiil: oP appi-opria'te -legislation. IP either oP the parties were unclear alKMil.-' the interpretation oP the status quo order', it was Por tli.er)i to I'lave. ni.iplir.d to' l.he Supreme Court Por clariPications tlierepP. Additionally, ' the I'elinnce placed by the^^petitioners/ve^do•rs oi") the Special l-rovisions Act .seeking interim legal sanctity to, the placement ioP -goods by tlicm od Iho pavements, by terming it as, encroacti.nient/unauthorizecl • i.rsc!, as recognized under the said Act and their Qontention'tPiat tlie Suinenie Couit had lecognizedthe Pact tPiat the Special Pro.visions/Act is t.lie only Central law having primacyover other Statutes, .are'd'lso matters ttiat the . ''''•P-CCJ-^r<!3/2mi/s2S4/20:U^comrectedur^Ctersi ' 27 uf —i. o peLilioners/veh'dors ought to I'lave placed UeTore the Supreme Couil whilc! seeking clarificcitions oF the status quo o;rderj- ],t would therefoi e' l.)e advisable Tor the petitioners/vendors as also the r0spondeniyi\ir)i^''l(.':to approach Supreme Court and-rnal<.e; their submissions 'Ihere as regards their grievances.' 'i-'iOwever,,as both parties insisl.:ed l:lir-il liieir eir.gun'ientsbe tal<en note oP a.nd their subjinissionsbe' placed on ret.orci, some pains have been taken to do the needful.

¶32[n view of tl'ie aPoresaid Pacts and. cirCiUrnstances,tliis Court i;; np tiu-i opinion that it v/vill not be. appropriate For it to grant stay orders in the Pace •oP the status quo order dated 15.07.20.1.1,passed by tPie Supreme, '..'ou.rt. It is reiterated that any, such order shall be.an arrti-tPiesis to the oiders oP tl'ie Supreme Court, which must be respected both, in letter nnrl spirit. • i.n suc.h circuiTislances,the present petitions' ai"e disposed oP l.iy de.i:lining giant oP any interim orders to the petitionerjs. However, liberl.y is granted to both the parties to apply to the Supreme;Court,for a clariPicationoP the status quo order-dated 15.07.2011 passed in'the case of Gainda Kani ' .(syB.i:'.cL}.- The parties are lePt to bear their own costs. • n t C)CT'Ot:l^.^,n, 2011 I'lc b W.P.(C)^.7^3/201.1^525^1/2011S,. connea.ecijna,:,ers (. . lie(Oil•III)...!'} ..JUtHVi.^ P'aye 2S iff ./-'t

'Zr • IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 + W.P.fC^ 4347/2011, 4559/2011. 4593/2011. 4610/2011 4650/2011. 4651/2011. 4827/2011. 4923/2011. 5024/2011 5028/2011. 4775/2011. 5247/2011. 5254/2011. 5255/2011 5257/2011. 5258/2011. 5261/2011. 5-262/2011. 5263/2011. 5264/2011. 5277/2011. 5292/2011 5312/2011. 5317/2011. 5402/2011. 5403/2011. 5405/2011. 5408/2011. 5410/2011. 5411/2011. 5413/2011. 5418/2011. 5423/2011. 5444/2011. 5473/2011. 5484/2011. 5485/2011. 5497/2011. 5498/2011. 5503/2011. 5504/2011. 5505/2011. 5506/2011. 5507/2011. 5508/2011. 5595/2011. 5614/2011. 5615/2011. 5616/2011 5618/2011. 5627/2011. 5630/2011. 5631/2011. 5643/2011 5645/2011. 5654/2011. 5656/2011. 5711/2011. 5717/2011 5718/2011. 5728/2011. 5729/2011. 5731/2011- —J-e / J. Ay 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 59S5/2011. 5966/2011. 5967/2011. 5968/2011. 5969/2011. 5970/2011. 5974/2011. 6096/2011. 6100/2011. 6101/2011 S1O2/2011.. S107/2011. 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. 4361/2Q11. 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. •4398/2011. 4398/2011. 4399/2011. 4400/2011. 4402/2011. 4404/2011. 4405/2011. 4406/2011. 4407/2011. 4408/2011. 4409/2011. 4410/2011. 4412/2011. 4413/2011. 4414/2011. 5341/2011. 4847/2011. 4859/2011. 4887/2011. 4990/2011, '.P.(C)4347/2011andconnectedmatters PagelofS 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. J f 5099/2011. 5114/2011 5115/2011 5129/2011. 5139/2011, 5144/2011, 6708/2011, 6824/2011, 6825/2011: fi«26/2011. 6896/2011, 6901/2011. 6902/2011. 6903/2011. 6904/2Q11 6907/?01i: 6908/701 / 6910/2011, 6917/2011, 6919/2011, 6920/2011. 6921/2011. 6922/2011. 6932/2011 and 5420/2011. THE MATTERS QF MOHD AiAM Petitionerin W.P.(C).4347/2011 KTRPAi' qiNrM Petitionerin W.P.(C)4559/2011 ••••• Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4593/2011 SHAILENDERKUi^AR Petitionerin W.P.(C)4610/2011' -r Petitioner in W.P.(e) 4650/2011 ... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4651/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4827/2011 BHUPAL ^ Petitionerin W.P.(C)4923/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5024/2011 SURENDERSINGH AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C)5028/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4775/2011 KUMAR AND ORS. Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5247/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5254/2011 DN=SH KuVaT Petitionerin W,P,(C)5255/2011 amn Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5257/2011 r,A.r^r~..^ Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5258/2011 Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5261/2011 ••••• Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5262/2011 ^FnADi Ps^onersin W.P.(C)5263/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5264/2011 iI alias lucky Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5277/2011 MOHD Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5292/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5312/2011 NAND I<ISHOrI Petitionerin W.P.(C)5317/2011 0x1!.!^..; ••••• Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5402/2011 RINKU KUMAR GUPTA Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5403/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5405/2011 rat!? KUMAR RAO AND ORS Petitionersin W.P.(C)5408/2011 NART HAqAM ^^^itionerin W.P.(C) 5410/2011 Li.™ ^ •-. Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5411/2011 BHUPiTde^r''<^^^ Petition