Disposed

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Delhi HC3 May 2016W.P.(C)/3818/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the New Delhi Municipal Council to allow specified street vendors to continue vending from their site without removal under the Street Vendors Act, 2014 until its implementation, strictly adhering to earlier granted terms. The vendors were cautioned that selling other items, encroaching, or sub-letting would warrant action.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction that respondents shall not take action against petitioners for removal until the Street Vendors Act, 2014 is implemented, provided petitioners strictly comply with ear

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~30.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) No.3818/2016 & CM No.16250/2016 (for stay). ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Malvika Trivedi and Mr. Jitendra Kr. Tripathi, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

¶8

% 03.05.2016

¶9

The three petitioners seek (i) a direction to the respondents New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to release the trolleys of the petitioners along with all goods without any penalty; (ii) compensation from the respondents NDMC for damage caused to their goods; (iii) a direction to the respondents NDMC to grant them licence to vend from the footpath near Gaylord Ice Cream, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi; and, (iv) to restrain the respondents NDMC from harassing the petitioners.

¶10

This Court has in a large number of other petitions has taken a view that persons as the petitioners who had no teh bazari licences under the earlier regime are not entitled to any relief in the nature of protecting their vending activities in as much as such orders may interfere with the implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and because granting such protection in a haphazard manner clogs the streets / pavements affecting W.P.(C) No.3818/2016 page 1 of 3

¶11

page 1 of 3

¶12

movement, safety and security of others having a right of use thereof. With respect to the area around Regal building, petitions have been coming before this Court and on the respondents NDMC citing security reasons and the fact that the said area is a no hawking zone, the reliefs have been denied.

¶13

It has as such been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to how the case of the petitioners is different.

¶14

The counsel for the petitioners draws attention to orders dated 27^th October, 2014 and 6^th January, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.7210/2014 and W.P.(C) No.8172/2014 earlier filed by the three petitioners and wherein the respondents NDMC, on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds (because the petitioners are physically challenged persons) had permitted the petitioner to sell refrigerated water, bottled water and aerated beverages from the said site.

¶15

The counsel for the respondents NDMC appearing on advance notice states that the respondents NDMC has no objection to the petitioners continuing with the said permission till the implementation of the Street Vendors Act but the petitioners have been violating the terms and conditions on which the permission was granted to them and have started extending their activity from the said site by selling other items also from the said site. Attention in this regard is invited to the photographs filed by the petitioners themselves to show that the petitioners have been vending items other than refrigerated/bottled water and aerated beverages from the said site. It is yet further contended that it is not the petitioners who are vending from the said site but the petitioners have sub-let the site to others and for which reason action was taken against the petitioners.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.3818/2016

¶17

page 2 of 3

¶18

Only for the reason that the petitioners have earlier been granted permission and the respondents NDMC is still not withdrawing the same at least till the implementation of the Street Vendors Act, I am inclined to grant protection to the petitioners to continue to vend from the said site but strictly on the terms and conditions subject to which permission was earlier granted to them and cautioning the petitioners that if they are found to be in violation thereof, in future, no such indulgence may be shown to the petitioners.

¶19

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction that subject to the petitioners strictly complying with the terms and conditions on which they were earlier granted the permission, no action of removal of the petitioners shall be taken till the implementation of the Street Vendors Act; however if it is found that the petitioners from the said site are selling other items and/or have encroached upon excess area and/or anybody other than the petitioners is found vending from the said site, the respondents NDMC shall be entitled to take action in accordance with law.

¶20

No costs.

¶21

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶22

MAY 03, 2016 ‘pp’..

¶23

page 3 of 3

¶24

W.P.(C) No.3818/2016

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Aggarwal Vs the Commissioner, N.D.M.C. and Ors.

Raj Kumar Tanti Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Malik Cable T.v.Network Vs the Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Rajinder Kakkad Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vidya Bharati School Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

M/S. Himalaya Communications Ltd. Vs Northern Railways

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary (Finance) & Ors.

Philips India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Tax (System Branch)

P.C. Srivastava Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S S C J Plastics Ltd.

Mohd. Haroon Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Richh Pal & Ors. Vs Nihal Chand & Ors.

M/S. Kunj Forgings Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs State Bank of Travencore and Ors.

M/S Shree Shyam Cotspin Ltd.(in Liquidation) Vs Allahabad Bank and Ors.