This order is a dismissal-in-principle of a writ petition challenging harassment in street vending by the NDMC, disposed of on the consent of both parties to approach the Town Vending Committee.
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions; application disposed as parties agreed to approach Town Vending Committee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SATISH CHAND CHAURASIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Advocate.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Standing Counsel with Mr. Rajender Yadav & Ms. Vidhi Jain, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
O R D E R % 06.03.2018
CM.APPL 8465/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2054/2018
By the present writ petition, the petitioner claims to be vending at near Gate of Subway, INA Market, New Delhi since the year 2004 and selling Pan, Bidi, Cigarette etc. Mr. Sawhney, counsel for the petitioner submits that the officials of the respondent are harassing the petitioner and not allowing him to vend at the site in question. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had made a representation to the NDMC in the year 2006, but no response has been received so far.
Mr. Peechara, Standing Counsel, who enters appearance for the NDMC on an advance copy, submits that the petitioner is not a regular street vendor and thus, he cannot be allowed to vend as it obstructs free flow of traffic and free
movement of pedestrians in the area.
In response, Mr. Sawhney submits that the petitioner has been vending since the year 2004. To support his submission, counsel has placed copies of challans from the year 2004 onwards. Counsel however submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if leave is granted to the petitioner to approach the Town Vending Committee (TVC) as and when it is constituted. He seeks a direction to the TVC to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and merely because he may not be found vending at the spot at the time of the survey, should not be a ground to reject his case.
Counsel for the respondent without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition submits that in case the petitioner approaches the TVC as and when it is constituted with all supporting documents, the case of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law and merely because he is not found vending at the spot at the time of survey, that would not be a ground to reject his case.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and this order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MARCH 06, 2018/ ck/
W.P.(C) 2054/2018
2/2
Satish Chandra Chaurasia
New Delhi Municipal Council
G.S. Sistani
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
