Arvind Gupta & Ors vs Govt Of Nct & Ors

Case No.& Title,Court,Number of Hawkers

SLP 29277/09 DDA & Ors. vs. Manushi Sangathan & Ors.,Supreme Court,68

WP(C) No.6893/08 Prem Shanker Gupta & Ors. vs. DDA & Ors.,"Disposed of by the High Cour

vide order dated 2.6.2010",t

----------,---------------,----------

W.P.(C) 5689/10 Arvind Gupta & Ors. vs. MCD & Ors.,Delhi High Court,03

filed the affidavit before the Supreme Court of India and an attempt was made to cover up by filing subsequent applications.,,

During the course of hearing Ms.Ghai has contended that in identical cases where at least three writ petitions were filed, in three applications which",,

were disposed of by the order of 02.06.2010, the petitioners in those cases were granted protection. While relying on these orders, Mr. Gupta submits",,

that this is also a factual error as those writ petitions were in fact pending on the date when the affidavits was filed but order of 02.06.2010 was only,,

an interim order. Reliance is also placed on an affidavit filed by the DDA in response to the first writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C),,

5689/2010.,,

Attention of the Court is drawn to the following paragraphs of the counter affidavit, which read as under:",,

“PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION :,,

It is stated that upon physical verification at Nehru Place District Centre it has been found that none of the petitioners are squatting or carrying on any,,

hawking activities from there. In fact, the very fact that the petitioners have themselves stated that the MCD had allotted them alternate sites in",,

Greater Kailash-I shows that they were removed from Nehru Place and that is the reason as to why, the need for granting an alternate site arose in",,

the first place.,,

That it is submitted that as stated above, upon verification from the site of Nehru Place it is found that none of petitioners are squatting or carrying",,

on any hawking activities from Nehru Place District Centre.,,

It may be pointed out that the District Centre, Nehru Place was taken over from the MCD on 18.4.2002 for its upgradation and rejuvenation. At that",,

time, all the regular Teh Bazari Holders were shifted by the MCD as well as by the DDA to alternative sites. The DDA allotted stalls to 85 persons in",,

Chhoti Subzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar and the MCD relocated persons to East of Kailash near Paras Cinema.",,

Thus, the area was cleared of all the hawkers in 2002 upon transfer to the DDA from the MCD.",,

That a conscious decision has again been taken by the Honâ€ble LG, Delhi in September-October, 2009 after the judgment of the Honâ€ble",,

Division Bench dated 17.04.09 in the case of “Manushi Sangathan Vs. DDA & Ors.†that Nehru Place is to be declared a “No Hawking,,

Zoneâ€. In the said judgment the Division Bench had prohibited the DDA from removing only the 67 hawkers who were allotted hawking sites,,

pursuant to the Pilot Project which was noticed in the order and it was left open for the DDA to consider the permissibility of declaring Nehru Place,,

area as a “No Hawking Zoneâ€. The decision of the Honâ€ble LG, Delhi referred to above was taken pursuant to the said permission granted by",,

the Honâ€​ble Division Bench.,,

That it is stated that the petitioners are not sitting at Nehru Place District Centre. From time to time, the hawkers like the petitioners try and",,

encroach in the area in question. Attempts are made to indulge in unregulated and unauthorised hawking and encroachment by different persons. The,,

officers of the DDA, on spotting the said encroachers / hawkers immediately report to the Delhi Police and with the help of the police remove the said",,

encroachers. Regular action is taken as far as possible, but the same cannot be done throughout the day especially, after working hours.",,

Since certain hawkers are sitting at Nehru Place under the protection of interim orders from various courts, the persons like the petitioners taking",,

benefit of such protected hawkers, try to occupy hawking space until they are spotted by the field staff and removed.â€​",,

Mr. Gupta further submits that in the aforesaid counter affidavit in para 10 the erstwhile land holding agency has strongly opposed grant of any,,

interim relief. Para 10 of the counter affidavit reads as under:,,

“10. That it is submitted that the answering respondent is disputing any right of the petitioners to the grant of any interim orders in the present Writ,,

Petition. The present petitioners stand on a different footing than the petitioners in the case of “Prem Shankar Gupta†being relied upon by the,,

petitioners for grant of interim relief. The deponent craves leave to point out the distinction in the two sets of cases at the time of arguments.â€​,,

Additionally, Mr. Gupta submits that Nehru Place District Centre has been declared as a “no hawkingâ€, “no vending†zone. He relies on a",,

decision rendered by this Court in Bachchu Singh & Anr v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors, W.P.(C) 2566/2017 decided on 07.09.2017,",,

relevant paragraphs of which read as under:,,

It is further pointed out that on 10.08.2009 under the Chairmanship of the Lt. Governor of Delhi vide item No.55 of 2009, it was decided that Nehru",,

Place, District Centre should be declared as No Hawking Zone. Copy of the minutes of the meeting of 10.08.2009 have been placed on record.",,

Attention of the court is also drawn to the observation made by Division Bench of this court in LPA No.825/2012 in the case of Urmila Devi v.,,

Delhi Devlopment Authority & Ors. vide order dated 11. 01.2013, which reads as under:-",,

“We are however of the opinion that the said controversy is irrelevant. It is not disputed that Nehru Place has been declared as a “No Hawking,,

Zoneâ€​. None is permitted to hawk/vend from open areas, streets and pavements thereof...â€​",,

Mr. Gupta also points out that post filing of the affidavit by DDA only 62 Vendors out of 67 by Manushi Sangathan (supra) were permitted to vend,,

and 33 out of 85 were found eligible as per the list handed over by the DDA to the MCD.,,

Mr. Gupta points that petitioners are not regular street vendors. Their names do not appear in the list prepared either by the Thareja Committee in,,

1992 or the Chopra Committee which was formed under the orders of the Supreme Court in the year 1989 and 1994.,,

Additionally, Mr.Gupta has strongly urged before us that a consistent stand has been taken by the erstwhile Land Owning Agency, i.e. DDA that",,

Nehru Place District Centre has been declared as a “No Hawking No Vending†zone. The said stand was followed in the case of Manushi,,

Sangathan before the Supreme Court of India. Attention of the Court is drawn to the order passed by the Supreme Court, dated 25.04.2011, which",,

reads as under:-,,

“This petition is directed against the order dated 17.04.2009 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the operative portion of",,

which reads thus:,,

In view of the above findings, we dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal by directing DDA to continue with the pilot project.",,

Accordingly, 67 vendors (reduced to 67 from 68 as per the statement made by the appellant-NGO) will be permitted to hawk in the area",,

which was demarcated by DDA prior to their removal on 19th April, 2008. However, it will be open to DDA to examine whether Nehru Place",,

or the said area should be declared a non-hawking area and if required, demarcate vending/non-vending areas in Nehru Place.",,

Removal/shifting of the hawkers under the pilot project, if required, will be in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the",,

case of Sudhir Madan (supra). The question whether Nehru Place should be declared as no hawking zone and the question of demarcating,,

non-vending areas will be decided by the DDA after making reference to the Ward Vending Committee and on the basis of the directions,,

issued by the Supreme Court and in terms of the Scheme of the MCD. We may note that MCD has stated that they had already allotted,,

alternative site to some hawkers out of the list of 67 street vendors. If any of said hawkers have already opted for the new site, they will not",,

be entitled to the benefit of this Order. The Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.""",,

Arguments in the case were heard on different dates and the judgment was reserved on 26.10.2010. Thereafter, the parties filed written",,

submissions and some affidavits. In paragraph 5 of affidavit dated 07.12.2010, Shri S.R.Solanki, Chief Engineer, South Zone, Delhi",,

Development Authority, has made the following statement :-",,

The Petitioner authority also submits that as an interim measure and till such time, the ward vending committee takes a decision on the",,

eligibility and relocation of the 67 hawkers under the umbrella of the respondent No.1 and other 85 hawkers sitting under various orders of,,

different courts at Delhi, the Petitioner authority shall not take any coercive action to remove these persons. However, the Petitioner",,

authority also submits that the same may not been taken as a concession on behalf of the Petitioner authority to give up its case of the,,

NPDC being declared as No Hawking Zone or an admission on the part of the Petitioner authority for other hawkers to use Nehru Place,,

District centre as hawking site.""",,

In our opinion, the stand taken in the above reproduced paragraph of the affidavit of Shri Solanki is in consonance with the direction",,

given by the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the special leave petition is disposed of as infructuous.",,

The direction given in I.A.No.4 of 2011 for imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- is deleted.â€​",,

xxxx xxxxx xxxx,,

Additionally, prima-facie, we are of the view that the DDA (erstwhile Land Owning Agency) and the MCD have taken a consistent stand that",,

Nehru Place District Centre is a “No Hawking No Vendingâ€​ zone and they shall not allow any other person to vend except for those persons who,,

find mentioned in their affidavit and form part of the order of the Supreme Court which has been reproduced above and some other persons who have,,

been granted protection by different Courts.,,

Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 10.08.2009, post the order passed by the Division Bench in Manushi Sangathan, have been filed in LPA",,

No.623/2016, which is also listed today. Relevant portion reads as under:-",,

“Item No.55/2009,,

Sub: Rejuvenation of District Centre Nehru Place, New Delhi",,

F.10(7)/07/CC-XV/DDA,,

The Authority also discussed the issue of rejuvenating the Nehru Place District Centre. After detailed discussions, it was decided that Nehru",,

Place District Centre should be declared as “No Hawking Zoneâ€​.,,

2) The Authority also decided that separate areas should be identified and earmarked as vending zones in different parts of the city.â€​,,

The matter was placed before the Committee by a note for confirmation. The note reads as under:,,

“Item No.56/2009,,

12.10.2009,,

Sub: Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 10.8.2009.,,

File No. F.2(2)2009/MC/DDA,,

Minutes of the meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 10.8.2009 are submitted for confirmation of the Authority.,,

(Appendix “Aâ€​ Page No.2 to 19).,,

RESOLUTION,,

Minutes of the meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 10.9.2009 were confirmed as circulated.â€​,,

The minutes of the Meeting dated 10.8.2009 were confirmed on 12.10.2009. The meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Lieutenant,,

Governor of Delhi; Vice Chairman; 12 Members; Secretary; and 20 Special Invitees and senior officers. Relevant portion of the confirmation reads as,,

under:,,

“ITEM NO.56/2009,,

Sub : Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 10.9.2009 at Raj Niwas, Delhi, File No.",,

F.2(2)2009/MC/DDA.,,

Minutes of the meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 10.8.2009 were confirmed as circulated.â€​,,

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the DDA, erstwhile land owning",,

agency, and the SDMC, have taken a consistent stand that Nehru Place District Centre has been declared as a No Hawking and No Vending Zone,",,

however, while deciding LPA No.766/2008 a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the LPA directed to continue with the pilot project and",,

the appellant-NGO Vendors of Manushi were permitted to hawk in the area demarcated by the DDA. It was left open to the DDA to examine,,

whether Nehru Place or the said area should be declared a no hawking area. After the passing of the order by the Division Bench on 17.4.2009, the",,

matter was considered by the DDA in the meeting held on 10.8.2009. The Minutes of the meeting have been extracted. The minutes were duly,,

confirmed. Subsequently as stated in the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court of India, protection was granted in the LPA only to members of",,

Manushi Sangathan and certain other street vendors who were enjoying protection of orders passed by different Courts. The names of both the,,

petitioners do not find mentioned in either of the list prepared by Thareja Committee, 1992 or Chopra Committee. Resultantly, we find no merit in the",,

present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.â€​,,

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.,,

The basic submission made by Ms.Ghai is that since the names of the petitioners figure in the affidavit filed by the DDA before the Supreme,,

Court in the case of Manushi Sangathan (supra), thus, the petitioners are entitled to protection, is without any force. Firstly, for the reason that in fact",,

no protection was granted to the petitioner and the affidavit filed by the DDA contains a factual error. This is evident from the fact that neither any,,

copy of any stay order granted in favour of the petitioner has been filed. To the contrary Ms.Ghai is relying upon two orders dated 20.08.2010 and,,

09.08.2011. One of the orders is post filing the affidavit before the Supreme Court of India seeking stay, which would not show that the petitioners",,

themselves were aware and conscious that no protection had been granted to them. Another writ petition was filed subsequently. In the second writ,,

petition also, no stay was granted. Both the writ petitions i.e. first and second writ petitions were disposed of allowing the petitioners to approach the",,

Town Vending Committee. During the course of hearing, Ms. Ghai relied on order dated 13.10.2006 of Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi which is also of",,

no benefit to the petitioners as the learned counsel has been unable to point out to this Court the outcome of the suit in which such an order was,,

passed. In fact, counsel fairly submits that she is not aware as to what was the outcome of the civil suit and in which proceedings this order was",,

passed. She is not aware as to whether the suit is pending or dismissed or whether interim order is confirmed or vacated.,,

We also find that the affidavit which was filed before the Supreme Court of India and the final order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the Supreme,,

Court of India reflects the stand of the erstwhile land holding agency in Manushi Sangathan (supra). As per the order, the Supreme Court has noticed",,

that “However, the Petitioner authority also submits that the same may not be taken as a concession on behalf of the Petitioner authority",,

to give up its case of the NDPC being declared as No Hawking zone or an admission on the part of the Petitioner authority for other,,

hawkers to use Nehru Place District Centre as hawking site.â€​,,

Such a stand was also taken in the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that “It is pertinent to point out that as on date the Nehru Place,,

District Centre is declared as “No Hawking Zoneâ€. However, by virtue of various courts orders, several hawkers have occupied the",,

Piaza.â€​,,

We may note that in at least three separate writ petitions which were filed in this court the SDMC had conceded that the petitioners in those writ,,

petitions were regular street vendors and had been granted protection by some court order hence a stand has been taken that they would not be,,

removed till a final decision has been taken in the matter.,,

The SDMC being a statutory body and limb of the government is bound to act in fair and just manner and the submissions that petitioners are being,,

singled out are not correct.,,

Having regard to the fact that in the earlier two writ petitions filed by the petitioners no favourable orders were passed, the stand taken by the",,

SDMC and further for the detailed reasons in Bachchu Singh & Anr(supra), that Nehru Place is a “no hawkingâ€, “no vending zoneâ€, we find",,

no ground to entertain the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.,,

It would be open to the petitioners to approach the Town Vending Committee(TVC) with all supporting documents, as and when it is functional,",,

and merely because that they are not found vending at the site, should not be a ground to reject their claim.",,

At this stage, Ms.Ghai submits that the petitioners would approach the SDMC and make a request for grant of site in the Greater Kailash area and",,

she submits that in case any site is available, the petitioners should be accommodated. Accordingly, it is directed that the TVC will decide the claims",,

of the petitioners in accordance with law based on documents filed by them and unaffected by any of the observations made by this Court in this case.,,

CM.APPL. Nos.40997/2016, 27977/2017 & 30441/2017",,

The applications stand disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition.,,