Shyam Sunder v. Ndmc and Anr

judgment. ' ' - . - A'. To give a brieP background oP the dispute, learned counsel Por tlie respondent/IMDMC walked this Court through •sorne proiriinent decisions ol' I.tie Supreme Court rendered frgm tin'ie to-tirne, whicti relate to •pavF;!mcnt l/y.p.(c) •^•74-3/203.1,' 5254'/2 'oil & connec:Led mailers Prsge. 4 af 2ft ) I -. squatliei's/l-iawlcers, stai'ting froiTi the. decision in the case oP.S.gdan bijiyl' vs. I\ID'MC-8l Ors.'repoi-i:ed .as (1.998) 2 SCC 727, the interiin iTi'dei'dnted

03.t>3.2006 -passed-by Supreme Court -in .vy,.IP'..(C) 16'9)9/:il.98.7 entitled Sudhir Madan & Ors. vs. MCD, the final judgment in tlie ca.so of Sudhir-Madan (supra): reported as (2009) -17 SCC 597 and.lasl.ly, the' judgment dated 08.10.2-010 passed in the, case of GcinidaJ^aiJL(suprq),

¶5. Learned counsel ^for tine respondent/NDMC vehemently 0|.)p0sed• tlie prayer of the petitioners/vendors for grant of interim orders restrnininq, ttie lespondent/MDMC from removing then-i from tl'ie sites, occupied by ,ttiem. tin ttie enactment of -an appropriate legislation, -in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Couit in ' tl;ie. case of GMj.1.dcL.,..IA.5!!i.l (5LIpr'ci]. She particularly •referred to observations .made -iiy the Supreme Court in paras 40 and A1 of the judg.mei)t in the case of Sodaij. .Sin'S.1.1 .(supra.)., which dealt witfi tfie immediate eviction of i.inaul.hprized sqi.iatters/lTawkers and laid emphasis on tfie fact that in tlie said case, tfie Supreme Court had directed removal ;0f unauthorized squatters/hawkers without awaiting final allotment of site's to be allotted to eligible clainiant/; at tlie places recommended by tfie Thareja .Cornn'iittee or suygestet.l by l\l[3MC.

¶6Again, in interihi order dated

03.03.2006 passed in Sudl]ir Madan's case fsupra), following observation made by the Supre.nie Court was highlighted by the counsel for tfie respondent/NDMC:~ -' (CJ 4/43/2011^ 52'54/2011 ai connecieil maU.ejs Ffjye ..5 trC 2i! J i "While we undertake this exfercise, we direct tl'ie : Authorities to see to it that those persons, who are carrying on hawking activities or who are squatting on public land without any authority, even

ii) accordance with present day scheme in force, are removed forthwith. This . includes unauthorized hawldng, squatting -oh public streets, footpaths and public parks,, including playground. We di.rect tlie.,Dellii /-\dministration to take steps immediately in collaboration witli MCD and NDMC with: necessary assistance from Delhi Police to clear roads, streets, footpatlns; parks etc. by unautl'iorized occupants/squatters/fiawkers."

¶7As to the' judgnrent dated :l.7.05.2007 rendered in the case of Sudhir Madan ("supra'),' much emphasis was laid by -tl'ie counsel fqr tfie respo:ndent/l\IDMC on paras 28-to and 35, which are re|iroduced liereinbelow for ready reference:- , ' • . "28. The Mew Delhi Municipal Committee has. also submitted its Scheme. We fiave considered the Sclneme submitted before us. The area which falls under l\IL")M(.; does riot create .problems, such as those in tlie areas under MCD. However, in.tlie said Scheme reference iu:i.s been made to persons who. do not have perniission under Section 22,5 or licence under Section 330 of the NDMC /Act, 1994 but who are unauthorisedly conl.inuing to carry on business, as hawkers/street vendors. 1 liey liave been described as those who are "tolerated" in the .NDMC area. We fait to understand why any person who violates theMaw should be tolerated. Either they si'ioul.d be compelled to obey.tl'ie law or the law riiay be si.iitably amended, if it is found to create undue hardship. The problems need to be addressed by the legislature or l.lie rulennaking authority. We, therefore, observe that if il ls felt that the persons who Fall in this category lequire special protection, tfie Act may,;be suitably amended l;d cover the-ir cases or else .tfie "number of such illegal squatters niay increase from time to time. m.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 connected mailers Page. 0 of 20-29-. There has been no serious objecLion to tlie Scheme submitted• by IMDMC which is a cornpreliensive scheme. Certain directions have, however, been sought Tor from this Court. We approve "the' Set)erne submitted by NDMC. ' •

¶30It is submitted before us that Schemes whic.h have been approved by this Court must be subject to any Act or rules that may be framed in consonance with National Policy on Urban Street Vendors. It goes .withpi.it saying, that we have approved the Scliemes as framed by MCD and NDMC. .[f the legislature intervenes and' fran'ies another scheme ' or regulations governing such Schemes, that will certainly, supersede tl'ie Schemes prepared by MCD and NDMC. It is well settled that any administrative action is always subject to law :• that may be framed by the competent legislature.

¶35subject to afoi"esaid niodifications/ctianges in the Schemes subjnitted -by MCD and NDMC, the same are approved. The said authorities shall now ta1<e appropriate steps to irnplen'ient the Scheine forthwith. In case of any difficulty faced by them ii'i implementing the sfthemes, they shall have the liberty to apply to thi,s Court."

¶8• Lastly, in tilie recent judgn'ierit in the case of Gairida llarn (supra), ^ learn(?,d counsel for the responderit/NDMCspecificallyrelied .upon paias';; i-i 30, 3.2, bO to 66 to state that the Supreme Court was conscious of tl.ici fact that a structured regulation and legislation is urgently requiicd to I control and regulate the'fundamental right of hawking. Sl'ie als(.i pointed OLit that three tier disputes redressal mechani.sn'1 set out in affidavit filed by the then Chairpersoil of ttie NDMIC was taken, note of by' the Supreme' Court in para 72 of the aforesaid judgment ancl in pnr'a 73, il: was then observed as below;-' . W.P.(C)4743/2011, 5254/'20Xl conneci.ecjiix^il:eirs P!}g<3 7 of .'/•fl : .) •f •, "73. In paragrapl") 12 of the'amdavit it lias Ijeen stated that there shall be an Appellate /Authority which sliall attend to redressal of grievances oP squatters, hawkers, traders, residents or any other person by hearing appeals against th.e decision of Vending Committee

(Main). Paragraph 12 of tfiat affidavit is sol; but below:- There' shall be an Appellate Authority. On forwarding of petitions received .by .the Chairperson, this Auttiority-stiall attend to ' r.edressal of grievances of squatters, fiawlcers, traders, residents or any gtl'ier person. Tfie Authority shall also hear appeals against • decision of Vending Comrhittee

(Main). Decisions of,this Authority unless challenged before a l-ligher Porum or in any Conipetent. Court, si'iall be final. Tliis Authority shall be initially headed by.a-per'sori appointed by th^ Chairperson having d't least J.O • years legal or judicial baclcground. Thei'e can bo more than one membei' in this ALithority.

¶9After mak'ing? the aforesaid observations, in paras /4 to /(;> of tlie judgment, the Supreme Couit went or) to observe as beloW'!- "74. .In th.e said affidavit, which was affirmed before this-Court on 24*^'' August, 2010 it has been stated that NDMC shall comply witti thie orders wltich would l)e passed by the adjudicatory mechanisrn contemplated in the scheme, and which has been approved by tliis Court for the NIDMC area,, unless such orders are. made subject matter of challenge before" a higher forum or in any other competent Court.

¶75In view of such schemes; hawkers, squattei's and vendors' must abide by' the. Dispute Redre.ssal schen'ie'" mentioned above. There should not be any •direct approach to thi|, Court by way of fresli petitior) or .TA^s, bypassing the"" Dispute FVedressal Mechanism provided in the scheme. M/'.P.CC; 4743/20.11, S2S4/20:t.J & connecteef maiteirs . ' , Ffjge fl.or 2f{.

¶76l-iowever, bePore 30'" June, 2011, .the 'appropria|:e Government is. to enact a law, on the,basis of tlie 13111 mentioned above, or on basis of -any arneridnieril: tlieirebf so that the hawkers may precisely i<.riow the contours-of their rights."

¶10It was ttiLis sought to be contended on bel'ialf • of respondent/NDMC that there can be no vacuum as far as regulation o.f trade of street hawkers/vendors in the Ni^l^C jurisdiction is concerned and the failure on the part;of the legislature to abide by the timeline set out i ' . .by the Suiprerne Court\in the case of Gainda P^am fsupra), by r)Lil:Ling in place a statute on, or ,before'30.06.2011, cannot be. interfjret.ed by tlie. petitioners/vendors to ri'iean that they can continue' their trade unhindered at any place of'their choice, in the NDMC jurisdicition, in an unregulated manner and-without any obstruction or objection froiVi the NDI'^^IC. '• • •

¶11Learned counsel for the respondent/IMDi^lC particularly referiecl to paras 74 and 75 of ti'ie aforesaid judginent'to state that dis|;)ute redressal scheme, noticed by the Supreme Court in para 7S was tlie'one tliat was legally functioning in NDMG jurisdiction and which was taj<en' note o(^ by the CoLirt in the preceding para 74". 'In othei" woi'ds, she sl:ated , I . ' . • that th|^ scheme as set put in the alfidavit dated 24.08.201.0, filed i.iy tlie • then Chairperson of IVDMC before the SLiprerne Court in Giajjida .liar,n,'s case,...(supra)., was the: one wliich was finally approved by the Suprenie Court. She further submitted that assuming, .without adr'nitting, tliat the 4743/2011, -5254/2011 S, connect:ed n^al.ters Page 9 t.tf J.H I . ! dispute redressal scheme set out by the .NDMCM'iad lapsed on 30.6.2011 as clain'ied by the petitioners, then NDMC Act provides-an adequate I'allbacic to ensure orderly rnanagement oT vendors ir) the area. Speciric: reference was made-in this regard-to the provisions contained i.n .Sections 221, 224, 225 and,'226; of the said Act. • '

12.; It was rurtlier argued by the counsel for the resporident/NIDMC.MJiat the application fiLeci by the NDMC before the Supreme CoLirt in .Inly 201 I. praying /nter a//a for extension of t'ime to regulate haw.kers/squatters In V tl'ie NDMC area, as per the sclierne mentioned in tl'ie judgment in GaiLlda, Ram's, case fsupra), till the enactment of a law-by the legislature in tl-ial: regard, had not yet been finally disposed of by the Supreme Court at the time-of passing of the sl'atus quo order dated 15a;07.2011 and similarly, • :S the other application filed by one-of the' h3wker|/vendors pi'aying /n/.e/' alia for: restraining-therespondent/NDMCfrom griinting Tehbazarirights to the winners of the'-lucky draw of lots for allotnTent, which was to l:).e. held ' on-12:05.2011'- or any date ttiereafter, was also pending consideration before the Supreme Court. Hence, no .finality could be attached to the order dated 15.7.2011 which can only be considered arf interim measure tilt the final .disposal of the aforesaid applications or-tl")e enactment of a legislation. • ' - •

¶13On merits, leai:ned counsel for the respopdent/NDi^lC referced tc.) the affidavit dated

01.08.,.2011 filed by tlie Director (Enfciircernent), IXMjMC; t/l'/.P.fCj 474-3/2011, 5254/2011 vonnscted n)aIJ:ers Page .lO of .7B wherein it was stated tliat pursiant to tlie public notice issued by Lhe IMDI^-IC inviting applications under the - NDMC, Urban Streel.; Vending Scheme in Lhe year 2007, Lhe respondenL/NDMC had received 4Ab'7 applicaLions. TLie docuhients required by Llie applicants for regisLradon under the Schenne included a prool" of age, documenLary proor/aflidavit (. . . i'or Lhe purpose of anhual income, proof .oP residence, proof ir) su|:),p(,)rLof special• categories like handicapped, Kashmiri nTigrants etc. and proof of squaLLing in tfie NDMC-area, if any. In para 4 of the afoi'esaid alTiiJavil;, Lhe following criteiia approved/adopted by Lhe Vending CJomniiltee l.o shortlist the eligible applicanLs is seL out;- • " . "4. That the criteria approved/adopLed by Lhe Vending Cornm.ittee to sliortlist LLie eligible applicanLs is as under:- ..

(i) The applicanLs should be residenL of Delhi wiLli his name regisLered in electoral rolls,: as per absLracL ol' phoLo E-Roll or lERO certificate.

(ii) Tl'ievapplicant should be a major, viz/ wiLli over :l 8 years of a.ge -as per valid birLLi cer|ificate oi' age certificaLe or school certificate etc.

(iii) T|-ie. applicant should be a needy ias per incoirie records'of i3C (Revenue) or as vulnerability rccord.5 of Government of NCT Of Delhi (Samajilc Suvidha .Sangam: .vulnerable and most vulnerable category).

(iv) The ap|"jlicanL should be regisLered as .per IMDMC SLreeL Vendors Scheme. The policy verlficaLion of l.lie applicant sheurd be available.

(v) This applicant or his-clependenL fan'iily ' nlen'ibei' -should noli, be employed or shoufd noL have' any oiJuir Lehbazari/yending or any other birsiness premises in Delhi as per record verification of NDMC/MCID. W.P.(C) 4743/2011,'S254/2011 & conneclisd maltsrs Page J T itf 2B

(vi) Preference will be. given to applicants wtio-are physically handicapped or widows or senior citizens above SO ' yeai's • or Kashmiri 'migrants, or SC./S"I" (necessary certjPicate to be submitted and relaxation may be given in th,e' above criteria)." ,14. As per tine resppndent/NDIMC, category-wise !i.st of eligible shortlisted applicants in-terms of the aforesaid criteria totalled to .387('..'. applicants. The affidavit dated, 0;L:.08.20;L;t states' diat-tlie respondent/NDMC has-identified 183 new spaces, in addition to t.he 2.03 '•h remaining spaces icJentified by the Thareja"Committee in the NIIMC area, which were available" for allotment, lihus taki.ng total -number o(-available spaces to 3-86.. It. was further stated ttiat due to factors lilce de-listing oP the Parllam.ent .Street on security grounds, coristruction. oi riyovers and' Metro Stations at various locations inithe-NDMC jurisdiCl'.ior), the nurnbei" of authorized .te/-;/.7c7Zc7/7squatters hachanged froni Jflo to 404 in number. The. number of applicants, who the respondent/NI,.)ML. clain'is, are vending unauthorisedly at-.Connaught Place, Sarojini Nagar, Parliament Street and .Janpath areas and in wl'iose. favour, status quo orders are operating, is stated to be'323 in niimber, The affidavit asseri;s that simply because the names-ot ttie petitioners, wlio are registei'ed with ttie MDMC, 'figure in-dne eligibility list drawn by the resporident/Nt.)MC., cannot be t.reated as proof of their regularly" Vending in the NIJML (area and nor does it confer on them any enforceable vested iMghl: b-' errsure^a , Vending space for them in the I\IDI'>''IC area, whicti is directly'dependent on I Vir.P.(C)4743/2011^ 5254/2011 a :c.onnect:ed matters Frsge :i':t <tf 20 Ltie number of spaces,civailable. Thus, il: was conLend'ed l;haL neiUicr l:he possession of any number of challans, nor ti'ie a'bsence tliei'eof can make a difrerence, for the reason .tt)at challans cannot form the, basis Tor the petitioners to claim any. vested legal right to squat at a given space. .1.5, CoLihsel Tor-'the; resii)on.dent/l\IDMC asserted .that ttie firesenl: •petitions are not maintainable • inasmuch as petitioners liave an equally eTRcacious alternate remedy ot approaching , ttie appellate authority constituted, by tlie Chairperson, NDMC, Tor redressal of tlieir •grievances and failure-on their pait to have approached tl-ie Vending Committee is hot on account of the fact ttiat die, said Committee including ttie appellate auttiori.ty is not tunctioning, but becc^use they liave found it more convenient to bypass the aforesaid forum ajid' apprpacli tliis Court •directly, which is not permissible. She stated, that extensive measures have been taken by the respondent/MDMC to, constitute ttie adjudicatory • rneclianisrn by way'bf a three tier system in the following rnannei ;--

¶1Vending Sub-Comrnittee (Site of Spaces), - . • .2. Vending. Sub-Committee (Heath and Hygiene) and

¶3Vending Sub-Committee (Enforcement).

¶16She fetated that creation of ttie aforesaid three Vending SuIj-Committees, Vending Committee (M.ain), as also of-ttie appellate authorily' whicti was constituted to redress the ' grievances of • tlie • squatters, hawkers, traders, residents or any othei" person against the .decision, (if .' • • • * W.P.fC} 4743/20H/S2S4/20.11 S, connected lUBtters Page 13 (tf 2U the Vending Con'imittee, (Main), was placed l^efore the Supreine Court It)r consideration and the-said three tier adjudicatory niechanisiv) was duly I approved in the iudciment-ofGainda Ram rsiipral. • , ' j-I

¶17Pel" contra, learhe'd-counsels Tor the petitioners/vendors, wlio appeared on diTterent 'dates, vehemently opposed aPoresaid stand taken by the respondent/NDM'G and asserted that the scheme floated liy the respondent/NDMC for regulating vending activities in its jurisdiction l. . . had. lapsed on 30.06.2011 in the absence of the enactment of a legislation as per directions of the Supreme Court in ttie case of Gainda R.ani.(su|Jj:a.). and as on date^-thei-e is no"scheme in existence. It was canvasset.l ttiat ' the implication of the' aforesaid order of status quo passed l.jy tlie Supreme Court on 15.07.2011 can only.nnean that irrespective of tlie fact whether scjuatti:hg is-legal or illegal, same be permitted to continue' on an 'as is where is' basis, and ''such status qucx is to _be maintained by all the parties.till a law is framed by. the iegislature.

¶18Mr. . B.B/ ' Sawhney, Sr. . Advocate appearing foi" .l:he petitioners/yendors-submitted that in the case'of Gainda Pvam (siifji:a..).,.tiie SupreiTie Court had dii'ected that tlie appropriate governiTient must enact ! a law on or before

30.06.2011 so that ti'ie hawl<er5 may precisely know contoui'S of thei.r-.rights, tience dispute redressal meclinriism provided for in the scheme mentioned in tfie aforesa.id-;iudgrnenl: coulrl operate only upto

30.06.2011 and thereafter, tlie said sclieme would t/V.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254^/2011 a connecied matters Page 14 of 2it •clutorriaticaNystand lapsed. . He staled that no other interpretation can be Q'iven to the order dated 15.07.2011, directing maintenance of s!:al:us ('i'."', in view or the qualirying -words, "as it is olDtainingtoday". He argued that if the scheme was 'continuing to operate, as claimed by tl'ie leariied counsel for the resp'onclent/NDMC, then there was no good reason Joi" the •respondent/NDMCto have reh-aine'd from holding a draw of lots, which . was slated' for the same day, i.e., 15.07.2011, and that fact of the mailer is-that even the resppnd'ent/NDMC had understood the status quo order-to mean that there is no scheme in.place after 30.6.2011, for the reason-that in para S8 of the 'aforesaid judgment in the case^ of Gaijj,da__kain (sui^raj, all the writ petitionsand the ifaterin-i applicationsfiled liefore l;he Supren'ieCourt were disposed of-with clear and'specificdirecliorisUiat the -problem of hawkiiig :and street vending ' could be regulated by the schemes; franied by the NDMC and MCP only' upto .30.06.20.1.1. i-iiid noL ttiereafter. It was-asserted on behalf of the petitioners/vendors thai: as ®n date, the directions of the Supreme Court ttiat status quo Is to be n'laintai'ned•by the parties can only be'given on4 inteipretatioi'i, w|-iich.i.s ttiat till a law Is ultimately enacted by the Parlian:ient, in-espective of -C1ieii legal status, all the-petitioners/vendors'would be permitted to continue - squatting/hawking at .the sites that have been occupied by tftem.

¶19Insofar as the composition of the dispute redressal mec rs concerned, .learned. Senior Advocate for ttie petii:.ioners subi'viil;te(.l tha) contrary to undei'standing of the respondent/NDMC,- ll'ie sclieine 47-43)"J611, SZ54/2011 & connecled mailers Page. IS (yf28 .. \ • reproduced cit paras 72 and'73 in the judgrnenl; in l:l'ie case oT Gaindg. Rajn .(supra), was noL tlie one whicli was acluaily recognized ijy Uie Supreme r . Courl:, and ratlner ii: is'tlie dispute redressai sciierne nler]l:ioned in I'lai a 7!j or Lhe aforesaid judgment: i.e., a scheme for urban street; vendois foi'.,,.> IMDIMC area as formulated in year .2006, which was uldn'iately • approved by the Supreme Court on

17.05.20'C)7, in Lhe case of Sudhir M.cid,an (supj'a)., which is tiie scheme whiich finds mention speciPicnliy in the following para 74 and is the one approved by the Su|;)i-enie Courl, It was contended tfiat even otherwise, the National Capital Territory ot Delhi Laws (.Special Provisions) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Speciall IP'ro\/'iiEioini!SAclt'), comes to the rescue ot the petitioners for the reason . that sub-clause

(2) of Section 3 of ttie Special Provisions Act niandal.es maintenance of status quo as on

01.01.2006, notwithstanding any judgment, •decree or order of any court,, in respect of encroacl imei it or • unautliorized development-Thus, it was subrnitl.ed on liehalP oi llie petitioners/vendors ttiat ttiey were entitled to grant ot interim |:irol.cclion till the enactment of a legislation to regulate hawking/vending activities in urban streets in Delhi on the basis of the National Policy on Url.)an .Street Vendors, 2009 framed on 17.06.2009 and the Special Provisions Act.

¶20With .reference .to Special Pi'ovisions Act, learned Senloi Advocate for ttie petitioners stated that phrase, "unauthorized development" used in the definition clause has to be seen in tlie sanie context as ttie one in Which the phrase "encroachment" has been dei'ined, W.P.(C} 47^3/2011, 5254/2011 A connectGd matters Page .10 of 20 wherein .it is mentio-neci that pLitl:ing up of ternporary, senni-Leniporary oi" permanent structure Tor residential use or commercial use or any ol.liei" use, and the placennent of goods on ttie, pavements by the petit.ionei's is liable to.be termed as unauthorized use Por rnaintainiiig status quo under the Special Provisions Act. i^uch emphasis was laid on tlie aveiDienl.s made by the respondent/MDMC in its interim applicatioil Piled bePuie Supreme Court in Gainda Ram's case fsupra) in July 2011, to sul:)mil. Ilial; j the respondent/NDMC itselP had stated in the'said application tliat Llie . scheme had lapsed and therefore, the only inl;erpretation tliat can 'Jdo .. given to status quo ,order passed by ttie S'uprerne Court on

15.07'.2011 can be that no scheme would 'exist after

30.06.20:1 ;l and tiTus, the benefit of the Special l^rovisions Act ought to be extended to l.he petitioners. He submitted tliat the phrase 'street vendors' lias been clearly defined under the National l^olicy on Urban Sti:eet Vendor's, lOO'J. , Reliance was placed, in, tlie case of Patri Vvapar Mandal Dellii (-llogd.-).,ys, , MCD Town Hall 8l' Ors. reported as

(2009) 12' SCC 475 and provisions of the Special Provisioris Act to submit that even tlie Supi eme Court had .recognized the Pact that the Special Provisions Act is the only •Central law governing Pield and it would have primacy over olher Statutes and administrative orders. It is ttius stated that the provisions oP the NDMC Act cannot be invoked by the re^spondent/IMDMC as tl'ie said /Act is not in consonance with Article 96 oP the Constitution oP India and furthermore, ' ttie Special. Provisions Act being' valid till tlie er,id ot S254/2011 connected mailers. Page 3 7 of 2it DecernlDer 2011, no orclers:in derogation of tine provisions'oP Llie said Ac;l. ' can be passed. ^ . •• ' '

21.• Mr. S.K-Trip'atlii, • Advocate 'appearing Poi" •some' op jtiie ' petitioners/vendors.-sougiTt to ernlDellisli tlie suljrnissions of ,iyi:r.Sav\/liney,., . Sr.Advocate and relied' on the orders passed in vy,.IP.(C)

1.449/2011 entitled Mohd. Ismail vs. NDI^C 8i. Ors. to urge that tl'ie "Ai.ipellate •• Authority" -constituted •under-dispute recfressal rneclianisni Por th.e NDMC area, fias not. been functioning, whicti i^act he .stated i's boi ne uul ProiTi a perusal of the brder dated

08.03.2011' passed ii'i the. aforesaiid case, wtierein the Court took notice of the claim of the petitiener/venrlor •' therein-to effect that inspite of oixlers passed by. tlie Appellate Authority allowing SG|ua.tting at a particular site, till a final deterniinntion by the Vending Comnnittee as to-his eligibility, the responde-nt/NDMC and the police wei'e disturbiiig his activities. In the aforesaid order, the. 5(:atement of the, counsel for the respondent/NDNC was .record'ed lo the effect that the appellate^ authority, whose o.rder was being relied upon by •the-petitioner therein,, w.as constituted initially for the MCC) areas'an(.i later . started functioning, for the NDMC areas as well for tl'ie reason tliat at that time, .there was no separa'te-.appellate auttiority Por the NDI^IC areas, l.)ut subsequently, in accordjance with the scheme, approved by ttie .'.iuprerne Court, - the Chairperson,. MDMC had constituted a sei-jarate ' aiifjellale ai.ithor'ity for -the' NDfilC areas. "rPierePorc-',-,the appellate auti appointed earlier had ceased to have jurisdiction •c/i./a the NDMC area.'.-;. i W.P.fCJ 4743/7W11, 5254/2011 connected nia!:ters ' ' Page 10 iff 2B . was Lhus contencled '•on behalf of petitioners/vendors Lfieil tlie aforesaid order clearly indicates that tfie appellate authority in tlie NI'jMC areas is not functioning.

¶22Reliance was-also placed on minutes of the irieeting of the Vending Committee dated 11.03.2010, to clain-i that if the fact of whether there was actual squattirig/vending was verified by the Committee nui.l if the names of the petitionei-s/vendoi-s figui-ed in ttie eli.gibility list I'lrepared by the respondent/INIIDMC for I'lolding tlie draw of lots, then it did not lie in •the rnoLjith of the I'espondent/NDMC to claim that the petitionei's, wtio had been verified and found •,to be eligible, were not entitled to .S(|Lial. at various sites in the IMDMC area after 30.06:2011.

¶23In rebuttal, counsel - for tlie respondent/IMDMC disiDuted tlie, contentions of the petitioners/vendors and while reiterating tier earlier submissions, asserted that petitioners did not have any legally-enforceable ri.gfit, created on basis of the eligibility list drnwi'i by I IMDMC, for claiming,grant of ihterin'i ordei-s in ttieir favour'. .She again I referred to paras 6'8, 69, 75> 76 and 78 of the judgment'inthe cn.se of ! I • • •••' Gain da Ram fsupra), to eniphasize that when aforesaid |:iar'OS ai'e I. read collectively, it is clear that petitioners cannot claim an-entitlement to any -inteiirn orders as sought by thern in tl'ie fiiesejit proceedings. Sfie .fui'ther stated that .even otfierwise, ttie .Special Provisions Act relied upon by tlie petitioners has duly recogni'^ed W.P.CCJ 4743/2015254/2011 fi ccfjrnect.eii liiaiters Page 19 til' Ifi 'i I ,schemes prepared by the local authoritiesin the National CapitalTerritory of-Delhi for regulationof Lirban street vendors. To substantiatethe saKJ, submission,she drew the attention of this Court to the preamble of the ^.aforesaidAct, which mentions the,fact that all the schemes prepared by the local• authorities in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, for ..regulationof urban street vendors in accoTdancewith the •|\latioiial i'olicy^ on tJrban.Street Vendors, 20G9 and the Master Plan for Delhi 202 1, have been in-iplemented and further that more time is required for pro|)er impiehiei)tation of the' schemes regarding hawkers and urban street.- vendor.s. , • .

¶24A specific reference was made by learned counsel foi' ttie respondent/NDMC to Section 2(l)(c) of the Special Provision.s /Act, which •defines phras.e "encroachment" to claim that it does-not cover' petitionei-s herein, who are squatters-'. Further reference was made to tfie •provision of Sectioi'i, .3 of the Special Provisions Act, wfiich contains a non obstante-clause,'to state that status puo with regard to tfie encro'actiinent: , or unauthorized development as on 01.01.2006, mentioned in tlie-.said provision, was in . the context |f defiriition of itie' |.)hra5es '"encroachment"and "unaxithorized(|eveloprnenL""set out in the definition claLise at Sections 2'.(l)(c) and 2Cl)(i) respectively of ttie Special Provisions Act and tfius^ the petitioners/vendors did not qualify under tl'ie . aforesaid enactmerit for claiming protection as none of the ingredif^nts .set . . out in the provisions Of the aforesaid encrctment are found to exist in ' P/V-RfC;4743/201:1, 5254/2011 ai connected tnaiiers • ' Page 2U case. II: was submittedthat the Special ProvisionsAct, which can.e into : erfect in the year 2007 and has been extended from time to. Lime and lastly, till Decembei 2011, does no.t cjive penriissioiito persons tc.i ie.:slart •any activity once they have been removed by the civic aul;hority and', . similarly, the Scheme pf 2D09 does not entitle the registrants to .sfjuat unless they have been allotted a specificsite. In support'of the aforesaid submission, ieliancs'was place on tlie judgment in tl'ie case of MCp vs. GuiTI&ni,_KaLi!:reported as" (1989) 1 SCC 101. |-or tlie pur|.Hjse ol' interpreting the meaning of the phrase, "structur-e", refei'ence was made .. to judgment of-!the Supreme Court in case of J'^LULLic.ijJaj Corporation of Greater Bo/ribav 8i. Ors. vs. Indian Oil Corporatiun Ltd.. I'Spoited as AIR 1991-SC 686. l-or the "purpose of understanding the expression, 'status quo', reference was made to tlie judgi'nent in the case/-. ol" Messrs Bharat Coking. Coal Limited vs. State of Biliar Be Ors. re|.)oii.ed ^a.s • 19,87.. (Siupp) SCC 394 to submit that in ordinary legal-coi inutation, term "staLus cyuo' implies'the existing state of tl'iings at any given |.)oiril: of time. ' ^

¶25As for tine National Policy on Urban Street .Vendors, counsel foi" the: respondent/NDMC stated that both, the 2004 policy and the 2009 policy,.., •find mention in the decision of the Supreme Court in tlie .case of ,Gai.r!.da. Pvam fsuora") and it was only after taking into consideration [lie said policies, did Court directed tfie institutionalization of url)ai) stioek ve.nding through legislation. It was further stated that at. the time of , W-P-(CJ 4743/2CU.t^ 5254/20X1 Si connecCed luaiCers Ffige 21 of 2!J cleliveiing the judgmenL">dal:ed8.10.2010, the Supreme Court Look notice , oP the IMCr ot Delhi Laws (Special i-'rovisions) /Act, 2009, wtiicl'i was valid •- * upto

30.12.2010, • apart from noticing ttie l^lodel Street Veiic.lors • ' (Protection-or Livelihood and Regulation ot Street Vending) l^iH, 200'..-) • •introdLiced •by the .•Governrneli't oP 1i:idia, Mii-iis try oP I•Iousing

1.111;)a 11 Poverty /Alleviation. She .stated that nothing new is now being subniitted . by' the petitioners/vendoi's herein, • Poj-present petitions to l.)e' entertained Por any purpose.-whatsoever and'all the grievances raised by 'the petitioners can. easily' be • addressed _.bePoi'e' ttie Vending Committee/appellate Eluthority under the schente relating to uibnn street vending in the IMDMC area, which Pora continue to ren'iain Punctional, even; ' aPter 30.6.2011. : ' • .

¶26'TT)i5 Court has-.heard these matters at length since 17.0.20 1.1, on diPPerent dates. Various counseis Por the petitioners/vendois and ttie, .Standing Counsel 'Por the respondent/IMDMChad addressed the Louit.- .Their respective arguments have' been taken note oL BotPr side.s luive made strenuous ePPorts to explain what the status quo oidei di.il.cll

15.7.2011 passed by lil'ie Supreme Court ini, the case ot .Giincld P!<a.ni.(s;uiDra)implies:' The leitmotifof the argun-ientsaddressed on behalP oP the petitioners/vendorsis that the status quo order read wil.li the • ,qualiPying.'wordi,"as it is obtainingtoday", stiPPixed to the order, can only - • be read to imply that as,on date, i.e., 15.7.2011, there was no schenfe operationalin the NDMC areas to regulatevending activities'andtill a InW hV.P.(C)47-43/-2i*l.t,_S254/Z9X1.Slconnected rnalters Page 22 of in I £> f... is ultimatelyenacted by the legislature,all the petitioners,irrespectiveof • 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/NDMC in collusion with the police authorities, is threatening to illegallyrembve the petitioners/vendors from different sites, which is detrimental, adverse, harassing and belligerent;:to those, who have been found eligible by the I respondent/NDMC for ^being allotted specific te/i/bazar/ispaces within the NDMC jurisdiction, but aVe being threatened due to lack of further action i'n-this regard which is pending at the end of the respondent/NDlviC. The second limb of submissions made by the learned cQupsels for the petitioners/vendors was that the Special Provisions Act would additionally come to the rescu.e 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 otherqnand, the main thrust of the arguments addressed by counsel' for the respondent/NDMC was that as the legislature has • failed to enact an appropriate legislation in terms of the decision of, the Supreme Court in the case of Gainda Ramfsupral, the subsequent order dated

15.7.2011 directing parties to maintain the status quo as it'is> '• obtaining on the said date can only imply .that the state of affairs as- . existing on date are not to be-disturbed, until the rights of the parties can , be finally deterhiined through •legislation. It was submitted that while W.P,(C) 4743/20lir •5254/2011 &connected matters Page 23 of 2S r% passing the status quo'order on 1^.07.2011, tlie Supren-ie Court was conscious of tiie fact tl'iat tl'ie l-'^ariiament. I'lad yet to enact' a .cornprel'iensive legislation to regulate urban sti'eet vending and in such circumstances, it goes witliout saying that it was the intent of the Coli.rt that ttie entire dispute nedressal mechanisni as i-ecognized iii the case of Gairrda Ramrsupra) would continue to remain, in operatioii, so as to regulate ttie urban "street'veinding in.the NIDI^C area, till the legislation'in tl)at regard is enacted. Further, it was stressed ttiat tlie Special Provisions Act did not provide any protective unibrella to, tlie petition'ers, whose squatting activities neither fell under -dennition of •"encroachment", nor uriider "u.nauthorized developrneiit". It was fuii;her asserted ttiat •even •otherwise pending an appropriate legislation, -the NDMC /Xct was available, a.5 a fall back option a.nd the relevant provision-s. in the said enactment would continue to i-egulate street ve.ridjng activity, iii the NIDMC area and the petitioners/vendors could not claim a vested liglif . to squat at any site of their'own. ' • .. .

¶28f-rorn above, It is apparent that arguments one co'iintei'. arguments have'been raised by both sides on their respective versions of the nieaning arid the effect, of the status quo order dated :tlr.'7.2011 passed, by the Supreme "Court. It is also very apparent, that-the nieaning-. sought to be attributed by both sides as to ttie implication of ttie .said status quo order, is dianTetrically opposed ,to each other. Mot. only this, both sides are at a tangeht on the factum of ttie pehdency or ottierwise of wr.P.(C) yJ-743/2011, 5254/2aiX Si connecS:Bc! matXers Page 24 of 2U interim applications filed before Supreme Court by botli, •applicants/vendors and the respondent/'NDMC, for clarifications, on wtiicli ttie aforesaid order came to-be passed as it is stand of ,tlic responderrt/NDMC tl'iat aforesaid applications were not disposexl of while passing the order dated 15.7.2011. The-, parties are poles apart oh-I question of import of the status quo order, and ttie effect of the observations made by Supren-ie Court in tl'ie case . of Gaijida Pvamfsupra) as regards the appro.val of NDMCscherne. They arc also at loggerheads on the composition of the adjudicatory n;iecha,nismJn I.fie ' *'i' I MDMC jurisdiction and .the-manner of its functioning, as'-'also tfie irientity of the scheme which is validly operating in the IMDMC areas for regiilaiJng urban street vending, .which had all been subject matter of consideration before Supreme Court in aforesaid, case. The other issues \ agitated by the parties', starting from the interpretation of ttie various observations made by the Supreme Court inji' the aforesaid judgnient, J','0 the. formulation of the scheme as approved by the SuprerVie Court in the. case of Sudhir Madan Csupra), to tiie composition of tlie di.sr)utes redressal mechanisnn and its validity as also the meaning of ttie .sl.ati.i.s .quo order, are all in a turmoil as both tfie parties tiave stoutly (Jefendecj their respective stands which .are completely at variance witti each other. The only .common ground shared by the parties .is ttie factum of |.)as;-nnq oF recent' judgment, dated

08.10.201U in case of .G.aiii,da ' .[lai'D(supra.) and the subsequent status quo order dated 15.7.20.l.:l passed . 5254/2011 a cdnheaied maUers Pfsge 25 of 2fi I by l:lie.SLi|;)rerr)e Lourt.

¶29Tlie rounlainheacl of the dispute in present cases dieieCoie i ' - remains the sCcitus quo, order dated

15.7.20J.1 passed by tlie Snpienie I Court. The issue wliicln is sougtit to be agitated before this Courl. is dial I'laving regard to the status quo order, \A/hetlier a stay order' ouglit l.o l.)e granted by this Court in Pa.vour of tl'ie petitioners/vendoi'-s as pi-ayed fur by thern, irrespective, of their legal status, thus foii.iidding llie ; respondent/IMDMC from' threa.tening and/or rernoviiig them-Troin I.lie ;• •different sites occupied by them in the MDMC areas, tn ottier words, this i i • CoLii't is beii'ig called upon to examine tiie meaning, scope and effect of i status, quo order elated

15.07.2011. On ttie question ol how l.o : ascertain ttie implicatio.n of a status qu.. ordei' passed by a court, in Ihe ca.5e of Messrs Bharat Coi<inq Coa'l.Limited fsupra), it'was ob.sei'A/ed l.)y tfie Supren'ie Court that the'expression, 'stalus quo' is Lindoubtedly a lern»i (.)f ambiguity and at times,' gives rise to dnnlit and difficulty and in case any party has any doubt .on ttie n,leaning and tlie effect of the statu-s i|ui) : order, the proper coui'se for such a pai'tv would be to approach the. Court that had passed tlie status quo order, to se3eIf:;.claI'-ifications.

¶30In tlie case at hand, while seeking 'to ride tlie wave of Ihe aforesaid ; ' , • • 1 •• • sfetus quo order, th'e ;parties have cho.sen to overlook . one imporlani I -i . ' ' ? factor, wtiicli is that a; status quo order operates on both sides. Ilu^ 'Supreme Court tias passed orders requiring both sides to maintain sial.us •W.P.(C] 4743/2011, 5254/2011 a. connectetl niaUers . Ffige 26 of 2H quo. Uhce such aiV order of l;he SiipreiTie Court is on record, thGi'same not o'niy binds all the parties to the adjudication, and alj the parties, civil or judicial who aVe required to act in accordance with the said ordois, but it equally binds the High Court Prorn interfering vyith such an cirder, as the said order has been passed in litigations before the higl'iest Court' of'the land-

¶31The orders of the-Supreme Court'are on record. Tiie status (|U() •i order is a clear signal to the Higl)'Court as well, to avoid grantiny any i • ; f order, including an ihterinT order, when the SujDrerne Court tias directed, .for stalxis quo to be'maintained: In sucti circu-mstances, if tl iis Court Was to grant a stay order-in favour of the petitioners/vendors arrayed befo'i e . it, it would be tantamount to negating the orders of the Supremfs C:oL|rl:, I which require, the pai'ties to inaintain status quo pending ena(.;(:ment of appropriate legislation.' If eitlier of the parties were unclear' at)(,.)ut'the i'llte^rpretation" of the .status quo order, it was for th.en'i to fiave appliccJ tu ; the Supreme 'Court fo'l' clarifications tl'iereof. Additionally, l.l'ie reliance I • placed by the petitioners/vendors on the Special Provisions'Act seeking i interin-i legal sanctity to placement of goods . by • then'i -on the pavements, by teniiing-it 'as. encroactim-ent/unauthoi.'i'zed, use; as i recognized under §aid Act and their contention that ttie Supierne ; Court had recogn.ized-,the fact that.the Special Provisions Act is t.he only Central law having primacy.over other Statutes, ar'e aisp matters ttiat the comi.ected inalters 27,itf 2S petitioners/vendorsought to have placed before the Supreme Court wiiile seeking clarificatiorife^.;of the. status quo order, , It would -tlierefore.be advisable for the petitioners/vendorsas also the respondent/MDinc:lo' approach the Supreme Court and make-'their subniissions tl ierfe as' regards their grievances. However, as'both. parties insisted that thoir • arguments be taken note of and their submissionsbe placed on record, some pains have been taken to do the needful-. • 32. In view of th:e aforesaidfacts and circumstances,this Court is <.,f the 9Pinion that it will riot be appropriate for it'to grant stay orders in the face of the status quo Order dated 15.07.2011passed by the Supreme^ Court. It is leiteiated that any such order shall be an anti-thesis to ttie ordefs of the Supreme Court, vyj-iich must be respectedbqth, in letter and s|.)ii1t! ;i.n such circumstances,the present petitions arisdisposed of by (.leclining. giant of any inteiim oiders to the petitioners. However, liberty.isqrnnteil to both the parties to apply to the Supreme Court for a clarificatiOMof l^he /status-quo order dated^.IS.07'.2011 passed in the case of Gamda.liaiii CsypraJ.. The parties aiie-leftto bear their ovA/n costs. ' ' ^ OCTOERpL'i, 2011 rkb W.P.rcj -^7^13/2011^5254/201a connected rna l:l:ers ..J-- (HIMA lltOII-lilL.I}•' .JUDGE • • -.Ppsge 2B in" 2'i

J IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 21.09.2011 Pronounced on: 24.10.2011 + w.P.rc^ 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. J. Xr 5255/2011 S257/2011. 5258/2011. 5261/2011. 5-262/2011. 5263/2011 5264/2011. 5277/2011. 5292/2011. 5312/2011. ^VJLJLf 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. 61Q2/2Q11, 5107/2011. 6108/211. 6114/2011. 6115/2011, 5116/2011. 6117/2011. 6118/2011. 6119/2011. 6120/2011 6121/2011. 6122/2011. 6123/2011. 6144/2011. 6250/2011. 6270/2011 6271/2011. 6449/2011. 6527/2011. 6528/2011. 6529/2011. 6530/2011, 6531/2011. 6532/2011. 6533/2011. 6534/2011. 6538/2011. 6555/2011. 6667/2011. 6668/2011 6669/2011. 6670/2011. 6684/2011. 6701/2011. ********* 5173/2011. 4739/2011. 5046/2011. 5051/2011. 5157/2011. 4649/2011. 4722/2011. 2601/2011. 2S02/2011. 3052/2011. 3181/2011. 3185/2011. 3189/2011. 3196/2011. 4340/2011. 4342/2011. 4343/2011. 4344/2011. 4345/2011. 4349/2011. 4350/2011 4352/2011. 4354/2011. 4356/2011. 4358/2011. 4359/2011 4360/2011. 4361/2011. 4362/2011. 4363/2011. 4364/2011, 4355/2011. 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) 4347/2011andconnectedmatters pgg^ (j 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. 5063/2011, 5089/2011, 5099/2011. 5114/2011. 511S/:?ni^ 5117/2011, 5129/2011. 5139/2011. 6708/2011 6824/2011, 6825/2011. 6826/2011. 6827/2011. 6896/2011, 6901/2011. 6902/2011. 6903/2011. 6904/2011 6905/2011,—6906/2011, 6907/2011. 6908/2011. 6909/2011. 6910/2011. 6917/2011. fiQIpWl. 692n/^nil 6971Oni / 6922/2011 fiQ32/2011anri ';420/2Q11. ' ^ ^ THE I^ATTERS QF Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4347/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4559/2011 Petitioner In W.P.(C) 4593/2011 SHAILENDERKUI^AR Petitionerin W.P.(C)4510/2011 Petitioner in W.P.CG) 4650/2011 ^ Petitionerin W.P.(C) 4651/2011 AMAR NATH SINGH Petitionerin W.P.(C)4827/2011 BHUPAr^T'^^H^ Petitionerin W.P.(C)4923/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5024/2011 M^wA SINGH 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 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5254/2011 Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5255/2011 Ai\nM Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5257/2011 Petitionerin W.P.fc) 5258/2011 •aiJwqat^ Petitionersin W.P.(C)5261/2011 Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5262/2011 P^t't'oners in W.P.(C) 5263/2011 ,1. Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5264/2011 m™1I lucky Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5277/2011 Mnnn yLm Petitionerin W.P.(C)5292/2011 SIHAKPff AHMPn Petitionerin W.P.fC)5312/2011 NAwn kishorf Petitionerin W.P.(C)5317/2011 nrlii?. Petitionerin W.P.(C) 5402/2011 Petitioner in W.i3.(C) 5403/2011 . ••••• Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5405/2011 RAT^f KUjviAR RAO AND ORS Petitionersin W.P.(C) 5408/2011 NABI HASAN . ' i:: mitione^in" 5^ BHu™de\''^®gh PetitlonerinW.P.(C)54