Disposed

Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. the Chief Secretary, the State Govt. of Delhi

Delhi HC14 Sept 2018W.P.(C)/3646/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought relief against dispossession of street vendor vending places. Court issued agreed directions for consideration by the Town Vending Committee without adjudicating on merits of the petition.

What did the court decide?

An order was passed disposing the petition with agreed directions to the Town Vending Committee to consider the petitioners' cases.

Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs the Chief Secretary, the State… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3646/2017 RAKESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Ranbir Saroha, Advocate versus

¶4

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THE STATE GOVT. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Jyoti Taneja, standing counsel for NDMC.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL O R D E R

¶7

% 14.09.2018

¶8

The petitioners claim to be regular street vendors and are vending at different places as detailed in the writ petition. Fear of dispossession at the hands of the officials of the respondents has led to filing of the present writ petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been regularly squatting and safeguarding their rights from time to time and have been depositing the fees of the Tehbazari. Ms.Taneja, counsel for North DMC has opposed the petition and submits that the petitioners are not squatting at the authorised places and have decided to squat at different places of their own choice, which cannot be allowed.

¶10

At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that the rules of the Town Vending Committee have been framed, elections have been held and counsel for the respondents has made a statement before the Supreme Court that TVC will be constituted within a period of one week.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would approach the TVC as and when it is functional with all supporting documents. He further seeks a direction to the TVC to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance

¶12

with law and that merely because the petitioners may not find squatting at the time of survey, that alone should not be a ground to reject their case.

¶13

Ms.Jyoti Taneja, counsel for the North DMC/respondent, without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition, submits that should the petitioners make an application with all supporting documents before the TVC, the same would be considered in accordance with law and merely because the petitioners are not found squatting, that itself alone would not be a ground to reject their case.

¶14

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the following agreed directions:-

¶15

(a) The petitioners would approach the TVC as and when it is constituted with all supporting documents;

¶16

(b) The TVC will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the material placed on record;

¶17

(c) Merely because the petitioners are not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted, that by itself would not be a ground alone to reject their case.

¶18

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and this order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.

¶19

In above terms, the writ petition stand disposed of.

¶20

G.S.SISTANI, J

¶21

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

¶22

SEPTEMBER 14, 2018/ rb

¶23

W.P.(C) 3646/2017 /

¶24

page 2 of 2

Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. the Chief Secretary, the State Govt. of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. the Chief Secretary, the State Govt. of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. Vs Vijay Singh and Ors.

M/S Asha Nand Ram Chand Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Akhileshwar Singh Vs Registrar of Companies and Anr.

Aplle Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajpal Singh Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Cosmos Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Police Public School Vs Ajay Singh & Ors.

Ankur Aggarwal Vs Yubika

Manoj Kumar Dubey Vs Jyoti

Devendra Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) and Ors.

Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Ors. Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ajay Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc)

Naresh Kumar Vs Sumitra