Dismissed

Lal Kumar @ Rakesh v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (Rohini Zone)

Delhi HC4 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/1932/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his removal from a hawking site, claiming violation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 due to lack of survey. Bench noted that respondent submitted no removal action is being taken in contravention of the Act. The petition was disposed of without substantive adjudication as no further orders were required.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lal Kumar @ Rakesh Vs North Delhi Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1932/2016 LAL KUMAR @ RAKESH ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Swati Kumar, Adv. Versus

¶4

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (ROHINI ZONE) ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

¶6

O R D E R % 04.03.2016

¶7

¶8

Petitioner has alleged that he is squatter/vendor at Teli Wala, Sadar Bazar, Opp. Flat no. 2359, Delhi. Petitioner alleges that Town Vending Committee under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short, ‘the Act’) has yet not been constituted, but respondent is removing him from his hawking site. It is contended that under Section 3(3) of the Act, protection is granted to the street vendors from eviction, till survey is done and petitioner is relocated. It is prayed that respondent be restrained from removing the petitioner from

¶9

his respective hawking site.

¶10

It may be noted that various factual aspects have to be considered in such like matters. Whether petitioner is squatting at the place, which he alleges to have been squatting is one of the important factors to be considered. Whether the said vending activity causes any obstruction in the free movements on the streets/pavements by the pedestrians and/or vehicles; is another factor to be considered. Security perspective has also to be kept in mind. All these questions can be ascertained by the concerned authority under the Act.

¶11

Section 3 of the Act reads as under :-

¶12

“3(1) The Town Vending Committee shall, within such period and in such manner as may be specified in the scheme, conduct a survey of all existing street vendors, within the area under its jurisdiction, and subsequent survey shall be carried out at least once in every five years.

¶13

(2) The Town Vending Committee shall ensure that all existing street vendors, identified in the survey, are accommodated in the vending zones subject to a norm conforming to two and half per cent. of the population of the ward or zone or town or city, as the case may be, in accordance with the plan for street vending and the holding capacity of the vending zones.

¶14

(3) No street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under sub-section (1) has been completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors.”

¶15

Respondent is expected to abide by the laws of the land and no directions in this regard are necessary, inasmuch as, counsels for the respondents submit that no such action, in contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act, is being taken.

¶16

It may further be noted that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20^th August, 2014 passed in W.P. (C) 4303/2014 tilted National Association of Street Vendors of India vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors . has observed thus:-

¶17

“Furthermore, insofar as street vending is concerned, the subject matter is entirely covered by the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The rights and obligations of street vendors, requirements of cleanliness and public hygiene as well as the formation of the Town Vending Committees have been specified in the said Street Vendors Act, 2014. Chapter 8 of the said Act also provides for the prevention of harassment of street vendors. Section 3 of the said Act provides for the conduct of a survey and Section 3 (3) thereof stipulates that no street vendor shall be evicted till the survey has been completed. It is an admitted position that the survey has not yet been completed. Therefore, the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 shall be applicable and no street vendor can be evicted. Section 33 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 also gives it overriding effect over other laws.”

¶18

Accordingly, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ

¶19

petition and the same is disposed of with the above observations.

¶20

CM Appl. Nos. 8271-72/2016

¶21

Applications are disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

A.K. PATHAK, J.

¶23

MARCH 04, 2016 rb

Lal Kumar @ Rakesh v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (Rohini Zone)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lal Kumar @ Rakesh v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (Rohini Zone)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shribhagwan Sharma and Ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.

East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs Vinai Kumar Srivastav & Anr.

Dr. Ajit Gupta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Suman Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

The Shivlok Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs Registrar Co-Operative Societies

Ravi Shankar Sahu Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Inderjit Banga Vs Registrar, Coop. Societies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Javed Malik Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Sunaina Katyal & Anr. Vs Gaurav Katyal

Gaurav Katyal Vs Sunaina Katyal

Hawkers Suraksha Foundation All India Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Saimi Sattar Vs Abhigyan Hans

Yogesh Gupta & Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.