The Court dismissed a second writ petition filed by a street vendor identical to a previous rejected petition. It held the petition is not maintainable and directed the petitioner to approach the newly formed Tender Valuation Committee.
Petitioner directed to approach the Tender Valuation Committee (TVC); writ petition dismissed.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:56:32 W.P.(C)2596/2018 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.
I
"4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and analysed the documents placed on record. Upon analysis of challans for the .years 1991, 1992 and 1993 are weekly bazaar challans and would show that the petitioner is •jiot a regular squatter. The challan dated 23.10.2007- pertains to applying for licence under the erstwhUe/,,scheme of MCD and .again cannot show thatvthi^|:)ietitip^ was squattirig at the site in quQstipri;)J5E5^;.bhallanshave been issued by the Tis .Hazari, jGourt^ however, the challans ofthe yekrvi9(78^1#79, 1980, 1992,2010, 2011 (12.10.2011)arid|i(|l!^s^^ nothing relating to the site where ythe '^|^itipn^^ claims to be squatting.Only^t^ojefelj^^ 09.12.1994 and 04.11.2011,pe'ifain and his place of squatting..
W.P.(C) 2596/2018
Page 2 of 4
vendors' as those having a pre-existing right as tehbazari Hcence or name in any list. In the present case, the petitioner neither holds a tehbazari licence nor has his name in any list prepared by the respondent no.l and thus, carmot claim the protection under Section 3 (3) of the Act.
(ii) Merely iDteause'M^^^ is not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted, that by itself would not be a ground alone to reject his case."
W.P.(C)2596/2018
Page 3 of4
StreetVendors (ProtectionofLivelihoodand Regulationof Street Vending) Rules 2017 have been notified on 10.01.2018. We are also informedthat the statutorybodies are takingnecessarysteps to conduct the election and for formationof the TVCs. It would be open for the petitionerto approachthe TVC as per the order dated 29.08.2017passedinW.P.(C)No.4858/2017.
CM APPLN. No. 10636/2018 (Stay)
In view of the order passed•in the writ petition, the present applicationstands disposedof';
G. S. SISTANI,J
I'-J; ''i
'Jl.'.UK' X
. V••• .• •••.. ,r•• ' '"i
MARCH 19, 2018
gr
•;r
( /
-IK
W.P.(C)2596/2018
Page4of4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second writ petition filed on identical grounds is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner can claim protection under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dinesh Kumar Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.Relied on¶4
Dinesh Kumar Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr., W.P.(C) No.4858/2017
Bhola Ram Patel v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.Referred¶6
Bhola Ram Patel v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr., LPA 136/2016
Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation (NGO) v. Commissioner South Delhi Municipal CorporationReferred¶10
Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation (NGO) v. Commissioner South Delhi Municipal Corporation & W.P. (C) 5023/2015
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.
G. S. Sistani
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
