Dismissed

Laxmi Devi @ Laxma v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/233/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed five writ petitions challenging the respondents' intention to dispossess petitioners from footpaths. Relying on prior orders, the Court held that protection cannot be granted as factual inquiries belong to the Town Vending Committee. Liberty to approach the Committee was granted.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Town Vending Committee.

Laxmi Devi @ Laxma Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

-J

¶3

	NEWDELHIMUNICIPALCOUNCIL&ANR	Respondents
33+	W.P.(C)245/2016
	BRAHMAPRAKASH Versus	Petitioner
	NEWDELHIMUNICIPALCOUNCIL&ANR	Respondents
34+	W.P.(C)246/2016
	SURENDERSINGHAHUJA Versus	Petitioner
	NEWDELHIMUNICIPALCOUNCIL&ANR	Respondents
35+	W.P.(C)249/2016
	NARESHCHAND Versus	Petitioner
	NEWDELHIMUNICIPALCOUNCIL&ANR	Respondents
36+	W.P.(C)250/2016
	KAMALADEVI	Petitioner
	Versus
	NEWDELHIMUNICIPALCOUNCIL&ANR	Respondents
37+	W.P.(C)252/2016
	ROSHANLAL Versus	Petitioner
	NEWDELHIMUNICIPALCOUNCIL&ANR	Respondents
	Counselforpetitioner:Mr.SatishKumarTripat Counselforrespondent:Mr.MananjayKumarMi NDMC. Mr.RonvijayGohain,Of	hi,Adv. shra,Adv.for ficerofR-2.
CO HO	RAM: N'BLEMR.JUSTICERAJIVSAHAIENDLAW ORDER
0/^	12.01.2016
1.	Thepetitionerineachofthesepetitionsclaimtob	evendingfrom

¶4

Page 2 of 4

¶5

different places on the footpath in front of Block-C, Central Market East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi and have filed these petitions to restrain the respondents New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and National Building Construction Company (NBCC) from dispossessing the petitioners from different places from where they claim to be vending.

¶6

I had in earlier stint on this Roster passed detailed orders in similar petitions i.e. order dated 30^ June, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.6115/2015 titled Brahm Pal Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and other connected petitions and order dated 11* August, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.6694/2015 titled Rajnesh Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and other connected petitions and had inter alia observed that even though the Town Vending Committee within the meaning of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 has not been constituted as yet but protection as is sought in these petitions cannot be granted inter alia for the reasons that the provision in that regard already exist in the Act and for the reason that for this Court to return any finding, factual enquiry will have to be conducted, whether each of the petitioner is street vending from the location claimed or not and which inquiry is not in the domain of this Court but is to be conducted by the Town Vending Committee to be constituted. 3. Moreover, the counsel for the respondent NDMC appearing on advance notice states that the Town Vending Committee has been constituted, as informed before the Contempt Court.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make out any case why a view different from what was taken in Brahm Pal and Rajnesh supra should be taken.

¶8

Page 3 of 4

¶9

These petitions are accordingly dismissed.

¶10

I am refraining from imposing any costs as were imposed in W.P.(C) No.6694/2015, taking a lenient view and in the hope that no further petitions will be preferred.

¶11

The counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to approach the Town

¶12

Vending Committee.

¶13

Liberty is given in accordance with law. /

¶14

<br>

¶15

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶16

JANUARY 12,2016 bs

¶17

Page 4 of 4

Laxmi Devi @ Laxma v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Devi @ Laxma v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

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

Ram Kishan Vs Rajesh Yadav and Ors.

Amet Sikka Vs Government of Delhi Nct, Delhi Government Secretariat

Neelam Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rajiv Khosla Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Phoenix Surgicals & Ors. Vs the Drug Controller of Delhi & Ors.

Suresh Kumar Arora & Ors. Vs the Registrar Co-Op. Societies & Ors.

M/S Srj Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Director Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.

Tulinder Katoch Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vinod and Anr. Vs Department of Excise and Anr.

M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Amar Bhardwaj Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Naresh Chand Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Brahma Prakash Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Kamala Devi Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.