Disposed

Shiv Murat Chaurasia v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Delhi HC24 May 2024W.P.(C)/7545/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi directed that the petitioner, a street vendor holding a Certificate of Vending, shall not be interdicted or interfered with in carrying out vending activities, subject to complying with the certificate's terms. The court deferred consideration of a representation filed by the petitioner regarding a fixed vending site.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the petitioner shall not be interdicted or interfered with in carrying on vending activities subject to compliance with C.O.V. terms; representation to be considered by TVC at appropriat

Shiv Murat Chaurasia Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~21

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7545/2024 and CM Nos.31425/2024 and 31426/2024

¶3

SHIV MURAT CHAURASIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Abhishek Saxena, Mr Singh Nishant Sanjay Kumar, Mr Vaibhav Patel, Mr Rahul Marwah, Mr Munish, Ms Mumtaz Shaikh and Ms Kamini, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Ranjeet Pandey, Standing Counsel for MCD/R-1 with Ms Mansha, Advocate. Mr Rishikesh Kumar, ASC for GNCTD/R-2 & 3 with Ms Sheenu Priya, Mr Atik Gill and Mr Sudhir Kumar Shukla, Advocates.

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA O R D E R % 24.05.2024

¶5

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , praying as

¶6

under:

¶7

“A. Pass an Order directing the respondents to ensure that that the petitioner is allowed to peacefully vend in terms of his vending site i.e. Shadara South zone, Ward 35E, New Delhi, without any Let or hindrance being cause by any public official.

¶8

B. Pass an order directing the respondents, their officials, their agents etc. be restrained from harassingdislocating-removing the petitioners from peacefully vending at his vending site.

¶9

This is a digitally signed order. 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 29/05/2024 at 11:59:55

¶10

C. Pass an order directing the SHO P.S. SEEMAPURI to ensure that the petitioner street vendor shall not be forcefully and illegally be removed from his vending site.

¶11

D. Pass an order directing the respondent Government of NCT of Delhi to comply and effectuate the provision of section 20 of the STREET VENDORS (PROTECTION OF LIVELIHOOD AND REGULATIONS OF STREET VENDING) ACT, 2014 , and make the dispute redressal committee functional within the stipulated period of a time.

¶12

E. Pass an order directing the Respondent no. 1 and 4 to decide the representation made by the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time.

¶13

F. Pass an such order that no street vendor shall be evicted from his vending site till the formation of the vending zone.

¶14

G. Pass an such directions or order that this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the abovementioned case.”

¶15

The petitioner claims that he has been carrying on vending activities from a site located at Shahdara South Zone, Ward 35E, New Delhi. The petitioner has also been issued a Certificate of Vending ( COV ) indicating his vending area as Shahdara North Zone, Ward – 35E. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved on account of the conditions of the COV, which require him to not carry on vending activities from a fixed place for more than thirty minutes or such time as may be fixed by the Town Vending Committee (TVC). The petitioner claims that he is required to be treated as a “stationary vendor” and not as a “mobile vendor”. The petitioner has also filed a representation dated 19.04.2024 to the Town Vending Committee in

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 29/05/2024 at 11:59:55

¶18

this regard.

¶19

It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that at the present stage, the petitioner cannot be treated as a “stationary vendor” as no specific site has been allocated to him. She states that after the survey is complete, the second Town Vending Committee (TVC-II) would be constituted and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi would prepare a vending plan in consultation with TVC-II. At that stage, the question of allocating a fixed place may be considered.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation be kept pending and be considered at an appropriate stage. The learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the same. In view of the above, we dispose of the petition by directing that the petitioner shall not be interdicted or interfered with in carrying on its vending activities subject to the petitioner complying with the terms and conditions of the COV. The representation dated 19.04.2024 made by the petitioner [which is annexed as Annexure P-2] shall be considered by the concerned TVC at an appropriate stage.

¶21

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶22

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶23

DHARMESH SHARMA, J

¶24

MAY 24, 2024 RK

¶25

Shiv Murat Chaurasia v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Murat Chaurasia v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

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

Ankit Agarwal -Legal Heir of Late Shanti Kumar Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Saksham Commodities Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1), Delhi & Anr.

Saksham Commodities Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(1), Delhi & Anr.

Vikas Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(3) & Anr.

Sethia Enterprises through Its Proprietor Mr Vikash Jain Vs Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others

Kunal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another

Vishwas Pathak Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mayapuri Cetp Society Vs Dpcc and Anr.

Sangam (India) Ltd. Vs the National Highway Authority of India & Anr.

Karam Chand Thapar & Bros Cs Ltd. Vs National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.

National Hawkers Federation (Harkesh Nagar) Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Om Logistics Ltd. Vs Hector Beverages Private Limited

Rakesh Kumar Kewat Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Hariom Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others