Disposed

Zayda Begum v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Delhi HC9 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/3969/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a street vendor forcibly dispossessed, approached the Court for regularization. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on agreed terms directing the petitioner to approach the Town Vending Committee upon its constitution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Town Vending Committee upon its constitution; TVC to consider her case.

Zayda Begum Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3969/2017 ZAYDA BEGUM ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.J.N. Patel and Mr.Tripta Kanojia, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

¶6

..... Respondents Through: Mr.Vijay Chandra Joshi, Standing Counsel for R-1 & 2/SDMC. Ms.Saumya Tandon, Advocate for R-3.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

¶9

O R D E R % 09.07.2018

¶10

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a regular street vendor and claims to be vending at P.S.R.I. Hospital, Bus Stand Near Sattpulla Lake, Press Enclave Road, New Delhi since the year 2000. Sample challans have been placed on record. It is the case of the petitioner that she was forcibly dispossessed in the month of February 2017. However, she continues to squat thereafter.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rules of the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2017 have been notified on 10.01.2018. He further submits that the election for the constitution of the first Town Vending Committee has been announced and fixed for 15.07.2018. He further submits that the petitioner would make an appropriate application along with supporting documents

¶12

before TVC as and when it becomes functional to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶13

Counsel for the respondent without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition does not oppose the prayer so made.

¶14

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of on the following agreed terms:-

¶16

The petitioner will approach the TVC as and when it is constituted.

¶17

The TVC will consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the material placed on record.

¶18

Merely because the petitioner may not be found vending at the spot at the time of survey that would not be a ground alone to reject her case.

¶19

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.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

G. S. SISTANI, J

¶22

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

¶23

JULY 09, 2018 afa

Zayda Begum v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zayda Begum v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

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

Amit Kumar Vs South Delhi M.C.D. through D.C.M.C.D Green Park and Ors.

D.K.Kaushik Vs B.S.E.S. & Anr.

S.P.Garg Vs Syndicate Bank

Paresh Nath Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Pramod Vs Cement Corporation of India (Cci)

Shaik Riaz Ahmed Vs Fiitjee Ltd. & Ors.

Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Vishal Tokas Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Himanshu Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mahender Kuamr Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors.

Sushma Vs Gamesh Mathur & Ors.

Krishna Sengar Vs Chandrapal Singh Sengar

Meenakshi Sharma Vs Ravi Kumar

Union of India & Ors. Vs K S Sidhu