Dismissed

Suresh Babu v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi HC14 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/2172/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking restoration of a street vending site. The Court held that Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 did not confer protection for dispossession occurring prior to the Act's enforcement, rejecting the petitioner's claim for special treatment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to apply to the Town Vending Committee constituted under the Street Vendors Act.

Suresh Babu Vs New Delhi Municipal Council — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~25

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 2172/2016 & CM No.9308/2016 (for interim relief)

¶4

SURESH BABU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anil Grover, Mr. Vishal Vij and Mr. Mananjay Mishra, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 14.03.2016

¶8

The petition seeks a mandamus to the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to restore to the petitioner the street vending site at / near Delhi Public Library adjacent to Shops No.11 & 129, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi from which the petitioner claims to have been dispossessed on 11^th October, 2015.

¶9

This Court in a large number of petitions coming up before it with similar reliefs has not been granting the relief or protection as has been sought herein. In several of the orders in such petitions, detailed reasoning has been given and the last of such orders being order dated 19^th February, 2016 in W.P.(C) No.1415/2016 titled Akhilesh Kumar Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council .

¶10

W.P.(C) 2172/2016

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

The counsel for the petitioner however contends that the petitioner herein has to be treated differently. Attention is invited to the order dated 1^st November, 2012 in W.P.(C) No.5851/2012 filed by the petitioner and vide which NDMC was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner, for the reason of the name of the petitioner finding mention in the list of 628 successful vendors.

¶13

The counsel for the respondent NDMC appearing on advance notice however invites attention to the subsequent order dated 12^th February, 2013 in the said writ petition vide which the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.

¶14

The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petition was dismissed as not pressed in view of the order dated 31^st January, 2013 of the Supreme Court at page 30 of the paper book requesting the High Courts not to entertain any petition by or against hawkers and street vendors. He further contends that the petitioner was thereafter protected by the said order dated 31^st January, 2013 of the Supreme Court.

¶15

On enquiry, it is informed that the order dated 31^st January, 2013 ultimately culminated in the judgment in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai 2013 (11) SCALE 329 and vide which all existing street vendors were granted protection.

¶16

The counsel for the respondent NDMC rightly points out that the same was till a new legislation was brought in force and which has been brought out in the form of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (Street Vendors Act) and thus W.P.(C) 2172/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶17

protection aforesaid by Supreme Court in judgement supra is not available today and was not available when the petitioner was dispossessed.

¶18

The counsel for the petitioner then contends that the petitioner thereafter is protected by Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act.

¶19

Once that is so, then the petitioner falls in the class of cases as aforementioned and in which no relief has been granted.

¶20

It thus cannot be said that the petitioner is required to be treated any different.

¶21

Dismissed.

¶22

Liberty is however given to the petitioner to, in accordance with law, apply to the Town Vending Committee constituted under the Street Vendors Act.

¶23

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

MARCH 14, 2016

bs ..

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 2172/2016

Suresh Babu v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Kumar Gurjar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sushma Devi Vs the Secretary (Home), the Administration of National Capital Territory & Ors.

M/S Delhi Metal Stores Vs Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal &

Acrotex Trade International,De Vs Cit, Delhi-Xiii,New Delhi & or

Ramesh Yadav Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Sri Aurobindo Education Society (Regd.) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sharif Ahmed Vs MCD & Others

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sushma Devi Vs the Secretary (Home), the Administration of National Capital Territory & Ors.

Intermediaries and Investor Welfare Association of India Vs Union of India and Ors.

Daulat Ram Vs M/S Idbi Bank Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Aprajit Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Realtime Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Kanwar Pal & Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Indian Statistical Institute Vs South Delhi Municiplal Corporation Assessment and Collection Department