Disposed

Dinesh Kumar v. Muncipal Corporation Delhi

Delhi HC1 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/2256/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction not to be disturbed from squatting at a specific site for vending activities. Court observed that participation in survey and allocation of a fixed Tehbazari site is mandatory. Petition disposed with direction for survey participation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to participate in the survey; petition disposed of with observations.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Muncipal Corporation Delhi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2256/2023 CM APPL. 8544/2023 CM APPL. 8545/2023 DINESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. N.K Sahoo, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNCIPAL CORPORATION DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel, GNCTD with Ms. Surbhi Soni, Advocate for R-3

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶8

O R D E R % 01.04.2024

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying as under:

¶10

“(I) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction or order directing the respondent not to disturb the petitioner for squatting in front of :- Shop/building No 38-E, Kamala Nagar Ps Roop Nagar ,Delhi-7 till Section 21 of street vendors Act ,2014 being enforced and vending fees being collected under section 8 of the street vendors Act,2014;

¶11

(I) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction or order directing the respondent not to disturb the petitioner for squatting in front of :- Shop/ Building No 38-E , Kamala Nagar , Ps Roop Nagar in compliance

¶12

of order dated 10.11.2021 passed in Writ Petition No 12605/2021;”

¶13

The petitioner claims to be carrying on vending activities at the given site [in front of Shop/building no. E-38, Kamla Nagar PS Roop Nagar,

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/04/2024 at 12:33:40

¶16

Delhi-7]. Admittedly, the petitioner has not participated in the survey that was conducted and consequently, a Certificate of Vending (COV) was not issued to him.

¶17

The petitioner has not been allocated any fixed Tehbazari site and therefore the prayer that the petitioner be not disturbed from squatting from a particular site [in front of Shop/building no. E-38, Kamla Nagar PS Roop Nagar, Delhi-7], cannot be granted. Even if the petitioner had participated in the survey and a COV was granted, it would not be permissible for the petitioner to carry on vending activities at a given site for more than 30 minutes.

¶18

In view of the above, we dispose of the present petition by directing that the petitioner would be entitled to participate in a survey, which is likely to be conducted shortly. The petitioner would be at liberty to furnish such documents and material as advised in support of his claim that he has been carrying on vending activities. Needless to state that the concerned Town Vending Committee shall consider the same at the appropriate stage.

¶19

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. All pending applications stand closed.

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶21

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶22

APRIL 01, 2024 g.joshi

¶23

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/04/2024 at 12:33:40

Dinesh Kumar v. Muncipal Corporation Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. Muncipal Corporation Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute Vs Sardaram Bhati

Kaushal Sangwan Vs Director General of Audit (Infrastructure), Delhi and Anr.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Grewal & Ors. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Zomi Students Federation Vs Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

M/S Blue Moon Cafe Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Kamlesh Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Karamvir Singh Vs Government of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Sh. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Salwan Boys Sr. Sec. School and Anr.

Tula Ram and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Uv Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs M/S Unified Vision Capital Ltd. & Ors.

Mohd Shahnawaz and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Naveen Kumar Vs Muncipal Corporation Delhi Adn Anr.

Vicky and Anr. Vs Muncipal Corporation Delhi and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs Muncipal Corporation Delhi and Ors.