Amit Kumar Gupta and Another vs MCD and Another

Gita Mittal, J.—These writ petitions have been filed by persons who are contending that they are hawking and so selling different articles in different areas in the Nehru Place Commercial Complex. The petitioners in these writ petitions have claimed that they have been hawking in the area over different periods. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8028/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 1987; the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8025/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 1990; the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8027/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 1994; the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 8018/2007, 8020/2007, 8026/2007 have stated that they have been hawking since 1996; the writ petitions in W.P.(C) Nos. 8021/2007, 8022/2007 have stated that they have been hawking since 1999; the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8024/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 2000; the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8023/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 2002; while the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7444/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 2001. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners who have claimed that they have a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India to do their business in this area and that the DDA is adopting a pick and choose policy and is illegally preventing the petitioners from carrying on their legitimate business. The petitioners have submitted that they are all registered with the Pavanputra Rehdi Patri Khomcha Sangh as well as the Manushi Sangathan which are non-governmental organisations looking after the welfare of the tehbazari holders, hawkers and street vendors. The representations of the petitioners through these organisations have received no response at all and that, despite the pressure from the respondents, they continue to do their business at various spots in the Nehru Place area. The petitioners place reliance on photographs to manifest their contention that they are actually continuing with the hawking business. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of the Division Bench dated 3rd July, 2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10479/2006 Citizens for Justice v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT) of Delhi & Ors. in support of their contention that they have a legal right to continue to carry on their business of hawking their wares in the area in question.

So far as the authority or permission from the statutory authorities is concerned some of the petitioners have placed reliance on certain receipts of payments made to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on different occasions whereby they were permitted to hawk their wares at different times.

The receipts placed on record however do not evidence any permission in continuity and are not in the nature of tehbazari permission or licence by the MCD. The same only evidence that some of the petitioners at different festivals and on some times have been permitted to carry on their business of hawking during different occasions. The identity cards issued by the Pavanputra Rehdi Patri Khomcha Sangh also only evidence the petitioners membership of this organisation and would not by itself create any rights in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioners have also placed reliance on a judgment passed by this court in Cont. Cas.(C) No. 1292/2005 Pavanputra Rehdi Patri Khomcha Sangh v. Shri A.K. Nigam & Anr. passed by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. to contend that the petitioners have been conferred statutory recognition inasmuch as this court has directed issuance of registration certificates to them under the Employees Provident Fund Act arising out the order dated 6th April, 2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16060/2004. Some of the petitioners produced the identity cards issued to them by the Provident Fund Organisation pursuant to the directions of this court in these proceedings.

The writ petition has been vehemently contested by not only the Delhi Development Authority but also by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Both the statutory authorities have taken a stand that the petitioners have no absolute right to hawk their wares at the site in question. So far as the MCD is concerned, Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Ajay Arora, learned standing counsels have submitted that in view of the orders dated 6th February, 2007 and 17th May, 2007 passed by the Apex Court in Sudhir Madan v. MCD & Ors. and the approval granted to the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors (2004) framed by the MCD, the petitioners have no right whatsoever to hawk at any place otherwise than in accordance with this policy.

So far as the Delhi Development Authority (DDA for brevity) is concerned, it has been contended by Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned standing counsel representing this respondent that the Nehru Place has been declared a zero tolerance zone in the meeting held by the Lieutenant Governor and that no violation of any legal provision can be tolerated therein. It has also been submitted that the Nehru Place complex stands transferred to the Delhi Development Authority for rejuvenation and maintenance and that since 2003 the entire area is with the DDA. Reliance has been placed on the meetings held with the Manushi Sangathan to contend that even the NGOs representing the petitioners have accepted that DDA is concerned with the matter.

So far as the existence of the petitioners on the location at present is concerned, the DDA relies on its communications dated 11th April, 2007, 14th May, 2007 and 17th October, 2007 to submit that all hawkers were physically removed from the site and that they only attempt to carry on hawking business as and when the official machinery is not on site. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel, has also pointed out that on account of the hawkers occupying space, the fire authorities have stated that the fire appliances cannot get easy access to the buildings in the complex in the event of an emergency.

It is submitted that the rejuvenation and redevelopment plan prepared by the DDA envisages setting up BOT Towers and other facilities in public interest in the piazzas of the Nehru Place complex and for this reason the hawkers cannot be permitted.

The DDA also relies on a judgment dated 21st September, 2005 passed by the trial court which was affirmed in an appeal by an order dated 23rd December, 2005 by the learned Additional District Judge. It has been pointed that the plaintiffs in those proceedings have assailed the orders before this court and certain interim orders have been passed.

Both the authorities however have vehemently contended that, in any case no person has an absolute right to hawk at any area without an appropriate licence issued in his favour by the MCD. It has been contended that no hawking is permissible in the zero tolerance zone.

I have given my considered thought to the rival contentions and also considered the available record. The admitted position is that the Nehru Place complex was originally developed by the Delhi Development Authority and its scheme of development provides several offices and other buildings, parking sites and open areas in the nature of piazzas. Besides offices there are several outlets selling various goods and services. These petitioners were admittedly selling their wares and conducting their hawking business on these piazzas. Originally built by the DDA, the complex was handed over to the MCD after its development.

It appears that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi held a meeting on 18th April, 2002 with all concerned authorities with regard to rejuvenation of the District Centre at the Nehru Place. Bearing in mind that this centre was frequented by a large number of people both working in the area, for shopping and just visiting its maintenance was essential. The Lieutenant Governor was of the view that the infrastructure of the Nehru Place needed upgradation for the reason that large areas in the centre had fallen into disarray so as to improve the quality of life. In this behalf it was decided in this meeting that the entire Nehru Place area would be a ''zero tolerance zone'' where no violation of law would be permitted. Action in this behalf was directed to be taken by the MCD, DDA, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi Vidyut Board, the Traffic Police and the Fire Department.

The Lieutenant Governor had directed the Commissioner, MCD to take action with regard to removal of all encroachments, whether in the right of way or on piazzas or in the common areas. Such action was directed to be taken immediately and the Commissioner was directed to ensure that these encroachments do not come up again. Several other directions were made. To ensure that the rejuvenation was undertaken and to coordinate the project, the Lieutenant Governor directed that the complex be transferred back to the DDA for maintenance in the future. A steering team was appointed to ensure that the directions of the Lieutenant Governor were carried out. The DDA has contended that pursuant to the decision taken, the Nehru Place complex has been handed over to the DDA for rejuvenation and maintenance. Administrative approval and expenditure sanction to the tune of Rs. 3500.47 lakhs has been received on 22nd November, 2004 and that an amount of Rs. 5 crores has already been spent on improvement of the plaza area.

Ms. Puja Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that none of the petitioners have filed any suit against the DDA. It is clarified that the memo of parties of the plaint relied upon by the DDA, though bears the name of Amit Kumar Gupta, petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 8019/2003, but the plaint is not signed by him. It has further been contended that a zero tolerance zone merely means that infringement of law would not be tolerated in the area and that the same does not mandate that no hawking would be permitted. According to the petitioners hawking has been constitutionally recognised as a fundamental right of the petitioners and that there is no justifiable reason for preventing the petitioners from carrying on their lawful business. Learned counsel has vehemently urged that the petitioners neither obstruct any part of the Nehru Place area nor impede any fire safety appliances for the reasons that the petitioners are not located at the site permanently. It has further been contended that the livelihood of the hundreds of hawkers cannot be taken away for the ostensible purpose of beautification of a commercial complex.

These facts would indicate that the stand of the respondent so far as the plea that there is a serious project which is being undertaken by the DDA is in the stage of implementation.

It now becomes necessary to examine the claimed rights of these petitioners. As noticed hereinabove the petitioners have placed reliance on certain receipts issued to them by the MCD. It is an admitted position that none of these petitioners have been considered or been granted tehbazari licences at any location in the Nehru Place. They appear to have been permitted to sell their wares from time to time on certain special occasions including festivals. It may be that they have not been removed and have so continued to sell their wares for the period which have been claimed. However certainly it cannot be held that the petitioners have a legal right to hawk their wares at a particular place in the Nehru Place.

I find that such an issue was considered by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 3rd July, 2006 which was passed in W.P.(C) No. 10479/2006 entitled Citizens for Justice v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT) of Delhi & Ors. This writ petition had been filed by the petitioner which is a society seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondents from giving effect to a letter of the senior architect of the DDA dated 15th May, 2006 creating 64 locations for hawkers place in the Nehru Place District Centre. This writ petition was dismissed by the court holding that these locations had been identified by the respondents on public land and that there was no conflict between a no tolerance zone and a regulated and a designated area for hawkers.

Hawkers are an essential part of the ethos of this city. Apart from providing livelihood to thousands of persons and families in the city they also provide a cheap dispensation of several items in an informal setting, the cost whereof would get exaggerated by the expenses of the infrastructure necessary to sell them in a formal environment. Several lakhs of people of all stratas in the city effect their purchases from hawkers. Goods which are hawked in this city range from petty items as pens, food, tea, coffee to items of clothing, utensils, etc. Certain areas see weekly markets set up by hawkers which show organisation and method. Festivals in the city of all cultures would be incomplete without the hawkers bazaars. The photographs which have been placed by the petitioner on record would also show that they have selling items from pan, bidi, pens, helmets to items of clothing from the piazzas in the Nehru Place area. Large sections of the public are thronging these hawkers as they peddle their wares.

The issue relating to squatters/hawkers carrying on business activity in the area within the control of MCD has been considered at length by the Apex Court. Four guidelines were laid down in the judgment which was reported at Saudan Singh and Others Vs. N.D.M.C. and Others, . This was followed with further directions made by the Apex Court which were reported at Gainda Ram and Others Vs. M.C.D., Town Hall and Others,

In this petition the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had placed before the Apex Court its scheme for grant of tehbazari/squatting/vending rights in the city of Delhi. The guidelines for identification of hawking/non-hawking/ squatting/non-squatting zones and allotment of sites for squatting and hawking rights were placed before the Apex Court. Pursuant to this scheme which was approved by the Apex Court assignment of hawking sites were effected based on identification of eligible hawkers who were identified by a committee appointed by the Apex Court.

However the matter has not attained a quietus even thereafter. The same was raised before the Apex Court again in the petition titled as Sudhir Madan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors.

It appears that even thereafter several applications were filed by parties before the Apex Court relating to the operation of the scheme by MCD. The Apex Court had passed orders dated 3rd March, 2006 directing formulation of a fresh scheme for grant of tehbazari/squatting/vending rights. The scheme which was framed under the title ''National Policy on Urban Street Vendors - 2004'' was placed before the Apex Court. The same was closely examined and scrutinised. Hawkers organisations and representatives appeared before the Apex Court. Valuable suggestions were made. Finally certain important directions were made by the Apex court which have been noticed in its order dated 6th February, 2007 reported at Sudhir Madan and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, The Municipal Corporation of Delhi had also placed before the Apex Court the manner in which it would operate the scheme. So far as existing rights of the tehbazari''s/squatting rights was concerned the respondents had clarified before the Apex Court thus:-

After some discussion, it was clarified to us that all the existing allottees as per the old scheme shall continue. Thereafter the cases of others will be considered in accordance with the preference provided in the said sub-paragraph. We however clarify that this will not preclude the shifting of an allottee from one site to another consistent with the norms laid down in the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors which provides that eviction should be avoided wherever feasible unless there is clear and urgent public need of the land in question. The Municipal Corporation will generally follow the norms laid down in paragraph 5 of the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors. Before any allottee is shifted he should be given an opportunity to give his preference for a site which may be available for allotment.

In the instant case this court is not concerned with persons who have any valid allotments on tehbazari in their favour but is concerned with persons who have been hawking their wares without valid allotment and would required to make applications under the National Policy noticed hereinabove which has been approved by the Apex Court. I find that the Apex Court is categorically directed that no licence shall be granted to any person in no hawking/squatting zones and that the station house officer of the concerned police station is required to take immediate steps to remove any person found hawking/squatting in a non-hawking/squatting area. If an allottee, who has been allotted a tehbazari/vending site in a hawking/squatting zone is found carrying on such activity in a non-hawking/squatting zone, the Municipal Corporation may consider cancelling his allotment.

While disposing of the matter certain observations of the Apex Court with regard to the rights of the public deserve to be considered in extenso and read thus:-

We would like to highlight the fact that though this Scheme is to a great extent is for the benefit of hawkers/squatters/tehbazari holders, it also serves a public purpose. At the same time the convenience and interest of the public at large, which constitutes 97.5% of the population, should not be forgotten by the concerned authorities. To the extent possible space may be made available for squatters/tehbazari etc. but not so as to cause inconvenience to the general public. This aspect of the matter should not be forgotten at any time by any of the authorities.

With these observations the court had directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the New Delhi Municipal Committee to finalise the squatting/tehbazari zones and submit a detailed report to this court. The court had required these authorities to indicate the norms for identifying the sites and that they should ensure availability of the footpaths for the general public after accommodating the squatters.

This matter was further considered by the Apex Court when further directions were issued on 17th May, 2007. These directions were made in continuation of the order dated 6th February, 2007 and reported at Sudhir Madan and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others,

Before this court a vehement plea has been raised on behalf of the petitioners that they are entitled to continue to hawk and vend at the same site. The same plea was placed before the Apex Court. In the order dated 17th of May, 2007 in (2007) 8 SCALE 339 it was asserted that the scheme proposed by the MCD was not satisfactory so far as survey work to identify hawking zone/non-hawking zone and sites were concerned. This contention was answered by the Apex Court thus:-

It appears that such a question was raised before this Court in the case of Ramesh Shah v. MCD & Ors. (i.A. No. 332-333 in WP(C) No. 1699/1987) and this court by order dated 6.11.2000 rejected the submission which has been urged before us, in these words:-

So far as identification of squatting and non-squatting zones are concerned it is an administrative function of the MCD which is done by taking into account various factors namely, public interest depending mainly upon the congestion in the area and public safety which are the main considerations for any Government. No challenge to such identification of squatting and non-squatting zones can be permitted under any circumstances when the administrative authority has taken all factors in to account. We are not sitting in appeal against any decision made by the administrative authority. We therefore do not permit any challenge to the identification of the squatting and non-squatting zone and to the map as prepared by the MCD showing Green shall be treated as final and shall not be allowed to be questioned.

In this view of the matter, we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel for the respondents who have contended that fresh survey should be undertaken by an independent expert body or an independent organisation to identify the hawking sites and the existence of hawkers. This is essentially a matter which the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has to consider and take a decision. We cannot issue a writ directing the MCD to do so, this being a matter of policy.

xxx xxxx

It was also submitted that the authorities may be directed to identify the non-hawking areas only and rest of the areas should be permitted as hawking areas. In our view such a course will not be practicable. In any event, that is a matter for the concerned authorities to consider and we can express no opinion in the matter. We may however observe that since a National Policy on Urban Street Vendors has been formulated the authorities concerned will have due regard to the said policy in the implementation on the schemes regulating tehbazari/vending sites etc.

The Apex Court by its order dated 17th May, 2007 also approved the proforma of the application proposed by the MCD and subject to the suggested modifications, approved the scheme submitted by the MCD with regard to the vending sites/tehbazari sites.

Both the petitioners and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi have placed reliance on the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors - 2004 which was drafted by the Ministry of Development and Poverty Alleviation. This policy was approved and adopted by the MCD vide its resolution no. 377 dated 25th October, 2004. Its implementation was placed by the MCD before the Apex Court and approved as noticed hereinabove. While the rights of hawkers have been recognised by the Apex Court, it has at the same time been emphasised that hawking cannot be arbitrarily permitted. Regulation and designation of hawking sites and method in allotment has been recognised as essential in public interest.

The Division Bench of this court has also so held in Citizens for Justice v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT) of Delhi & Ors. (supra).

Mr. Ajay Arora, Ms. Sumita Kapil and Ms. Smita Shankar, learned standing counsels for the MCD have pointed out that during the consideration before the Apex Court of the implementation of the National Policy in Sudhir Madan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. the court had also before it numerous affidavits filed by the MCD including those filed on 13th January, 2006, 7th April, 2006, 1st May. 2006, 11th September, 2006 and 20th March, 2007. The court also considered the earlier decision of the court reported at (2004) 1 SCC 625 Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai & Ors. The directions on 6th February, 2007 and 17th May, 2007 took into consideration the various suggestions and difficulties pointed out on behalf of the hawkers as well. Learned counsels have pointed out that the corporation has thereafter formulated its Scheme for Squatters/Hawkers -2007 for implementation of the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors - 2004 as modified by the orders of the Apex Court.

It is therefore not open to any person or authority to thus contend that vending/hawking and squatting can be permitted in any manner other than the manner envisaged under this national policy.

I find that this Scheme of 2007 placed on record postulates reconstitution of Ward Vending Committees constituted in 134 wards for the reason that the MCD had increased the number of wards of 272 which would be responsible for identification of sites, declaration of hawking and non-hawking/squatting and non-squatting zone in consultation with the various stake holders. The vendors/traders association, residents welfare associations, the traffic police, the Delhi Fire Service, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation etc. are all required to be involved in the deliberations. This scheme also considers that zonal committees have been constituted in the 12 zones but would be responsible for approving and reviewing the zones where so ever identified by the Ward Vending Committees. Their identification would not be permanent but would be subject to change depending on the exigencies.

So far as the number of vending sites was concerned, as approved by the Apex Court in the judgment dated 17th May, 2007 reported at Sudhir Madan and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, , the schemes has postulated that the total number of vending sites cannot exceed 2.5% of the total population of the particular ward/zone which would be based on the census figures of 2001 subject to change as and when current census figures would be available.

The MCD has also prescribed priorities in allotment of the tehbazari/vending sites including those allotted under earlier scheme; 578 cases waiting for allotment have been eligible under the Gainda Ram scheme; cases rejected by the Chopra Committee for not furnishing of required documents and due to minor reasons and cases pending in different courts; handicapped persons and widows; widows of deceased MCD employees; war widows; and the women; generally urban poor people especially those who are engaged in the activities of squatting/hawking.

Ms. Puja Anand learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have all applied for grant of hawking sites under the National Policy for Urban Street Vendors - 2004 and are awaiting consideration of their applications.

It has been contended that the petitioners ought not to be displaced pending consideration of their sites.

I find that mere is no dispute that the petitioners would be entitled to consideration in accordance of the said scheme. As noticed above, the petitioners have been hawking without allocation of a particular hawking site to them. The DDA has placed reliance on several communications addressed to the police which would indicate that the DDA had taken action for removal of the hawkers on 8th and 9th March, 2003 and 12th and 13th April, 2007. It also appears that a complaint was made by the Assistant Engineer III of the DDA to the chowki incharge of the Police Post Nehru Place on 11th April, 2007 that despite removal of these hawkers on 8th and 9th March, 2007, some of the unauthorised vendors/hawkers have started occupying the areas again. Police protection was sought on 12th and 13th April, 2007 to remove such persons from open space, main plaza and adjoining areas in the corridors, verandahs, galleries etc. A complaint on 14th May, 2007 is to the same effect. It would thus seem that the respondents were taking steps to remove the hawkers and vendors pursuant to the policy and court orders but the hawkers were resuming their hawking activity.

It is admitted position that the petitioners are not hawking on a site designated or allotted to them by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Therefore, the petitioners cannot urge a plea that they have a vested right to continue to hawk at such site or any other site unless designated or allotted by the authorities. The apex court has also so held in the aforenoticed binding precedents. The act of resumption of hawking after removal also does not create any vested right in the petitioners.

At this stage reference is made to the orders relied upon by the DDA to urge that in several proceedings initiated by some of the hawkers, it had been held that the hawkers had no legal title to the land and that the land belongs to the Central Government and that the plaintiffs were encroachers without any right, title or interest on the land and consequently were not entitled to any relief. It was so was held by a learned Civil judge in a judgment dated 21st September, 2005 passed in Suit No. 86/2005 entitled Amit Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Choudhry Virendra Singh & Anr. whereby the learned Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. This judgment was carried in appeal by the plaintiffs in First Appeal No. 46/2005 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 23rd December, 2005 affirming the findings of the learned trial judge. The DDA admits that these judgments have been assailed by the plaintiffs therein before this court and the matter is pending consideration.

I find that there is no final pronouncement by this court which could govern the issues raised before this court. In any case, the issues raised before this court are squarely covered by the adjudication by the Apex Court in Sudhir Madan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. (supra).

It has been held by the Division Bench in the judgment in Citizens for Justice v. MCD (supra) that hawkers also serve a public need of the less affluent section of our population and certainly cannot be wished away. Their requirements and their need has also been recognised by the Apex Court. However it has been held and directed by the Apex Court and by the Division Bench that rather than banishing them, it is necessary to ensure that the business of hawking is regulated and legitimised to ensure optimum utilisation of public spaces. Such regulated hawking would not only be eminent in public interest but would also generate revenue for the state and at the same time provide for employment avenues to those in dire need of the same.

It is in recognition of the rights of the hawkers as well as the requirement of regulation and legitimisation of such activity that the Apex Court has taken up the matter at length and has carefully scrutinised the scheme placed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi before it. The scheme approved by the Apex Court is being effectuated and admittedly applications of the petitioners are pending consideration. Certainly the petitioners who are indiscriminately hawking their wares at any location in the Nehru Place District Centre cannot make a grievance because the authorities are effectuating the scheme to ensure that hawking is carried on in a regulated manner. This is even more essential inasmuch as the Delhi Development Authority at the same time is also taking up a rejuvenation plan essentially in public interest. The fair implementation of the scheme would be in the interest of the hawkers as well as it would obviate all allegations of arbitrariness or malafide in award of hawking sites by the authorities.

The petitioners have pointed out that they have made a strong grievance that they are being removed at the behest of shopkeepers of the area. It has further been complained that these shopkeepers, who are powerful persons, have effected widespread encroachment in the corridors and open areas in the Nehru Place and have expanded their business activity beyond the allotted areas.

There seems to be substance in the grievance of the petitioners inasmuch as the W.P.(C) No. 10479/2006 was filed by a registered society Citizens for Justice seeking removal of the hawkers. This petitioner was asserting the grievance of the shop owners against the hawkers in the District Centre, Nehru Place. While the petitioners can make no grievance with regard to the action of the respondents and steps taken towards regulation of the hawking activities and locating hawkers at designated sites, at the same time the respondents cannot permit any encroachment of corridors or public land in the District Centre Nehru Place. The respondent is bound to ensure that no person is permitted to occupy the corridors or other open areas in the District Centre Nehru Place and all public areas are kept free from any encroachment.

It is necessary to point out one essential difference between hawkers and other persons who would grab public land. The ''hawkers or vendors'' by the very expression occupy a space for the purposes of vending their wares. They come and go and are not located permanently and exclusively on any land in question so as to be labeled as encroachers.

It is interested that such strong arguments are being laid against hawkers by the respondents whereas at the same time the respondents are simultaneously taking steps towards regularisations of encroachments and even permanent constructions on public land, including land acquired from farmers, which is not even on account of any economic necessity. There appears to be an inherent contradiction in the stands which are taken. In the instant case the Delhi Fire Service has also informed the Delhi Development Authority that it needs free access to the Nehru Place commercial complex and that on account of unauthorised parking of vehicles and unauthorised vendors on roads it is very difficult to approach a premises located in the District Centre for fire appliances in case of an emergency. Certainly it cannot be contended that indiscriminate hawking by the vendors in the open areas and piazzas in the Nehru Place would not amount to an obstruction to the fire appliances and the fire services personnel from accessing the buildings in the event of an untoward happening or an emergency.

For all these reasons the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought which are hereby rejected.

Before parting with the case, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have urged that they would be deprived of their means of livelihood which would impact the lives of several hundreds of families, it is essential that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi considers and deals with the application received by it pursuant to the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors - 2004 and its Scheme for Hawkers and Vendors - 2007 with transparency and without delay. Accordingly it is directed that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall consider the applications and make the necessary allotments expeditiously.

The respondents shall also ensure that all encroachments from verandahs, corridors, open areas and piazzas are removed.