Disposed

Mohan Lal v. Shri Gyanesh Bharti and Ors.

Delhi HC16 May 2024CONT.CAS(C)/807/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order admits the petitioner's undertaking to comply with Code of Vending (CoV) terms, prohibits interdicting him from vending for >30 mins pending survey, and directs him to apply for goods release and penalty waiver.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted undertaking to comply with CoV; directed not to be interdicted pending survey; liberty to apply for goods release.

Mohan Lal Vs Shri Gyanesh Bharti and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~92

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 807/2024

¶4

MOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sanjay Baniwal and Mr. Manish, Advocates along with petitioner in person

¶6

versus

¶7

SHRI GYANESH BHARTI AND ORS. ..... Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel for MCD. Mr. Divyam Nanrajog, Panel Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Jatin Dua, Advocate for R-3&4. SI Kailash, PS Karol Bagh.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶10

O R D E R % 16.05.2024

¶11

The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 4^th April, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4922/2024 . By way of the aforesaid order, learned Division Bench had directed as follows:-

¶12

“6. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the TVC is directed to consider his representation and, in the interregnum, be permitted to continue his vending activities strictly in accordance with the COV, which requires street vendors to not carry on vending activities at a specific place for more than thirty minutes or such time as may be fixed by the TVC.

¶13

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 21/05/2024 at 11:33:43

¶14

7. Learned counsel appearing for the MCD submits that he has no objection to an order passed to the aforesaid effect.

¶15

8. In view of the above, we dispose of the petition by directing the concerned TVC to consider the petitioner's representation and take an appropriate decision till the survey is completed and a vending plan is put in place by MCD in consultation with TVC-IL

¶16

9. In the meantime, the petitioner would not be interdicted from carrying on his vending activities provided the same are carried on in accordance with the terms and conditions of the COV issued by the TVC.”

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite the categorical directions by the Division Bench as aforesaid, the petitioner is not allowed to vend in terms of the Certificate of Vending (CoV).

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.13/Municipal Corporation of Delhi submits that as per the terms of the CoV, the petitioner cannot be allowed to vend at a place for more than 30 minutes. He further submits that the petitioner is a mobile vendor and cannot be stationary at a place beyond 30 minutes. It is submitted that the area of Karol Bagh Zone, from where the goods of the petitioner were confiscated, is a ‘no vending, no hawking zone’ .

¶19

However, the aforesaid submission is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner for declaring the petitioner as a stationary vendor is already pending with the respondents, which shall be decided in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. He, thus, on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, submits that the

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 21/05/2024 at 11:33:43

¶23

petitioner shall comply with the terms and condition of the CoV and he will not vend at a place for more than 30 minutes. The aforesaid undertaking of the petitioner is taken on record and it is directed that the petitioner shall vend strictly in compliance with the terms and conditions of the CoV.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the goods of the petitioner, that had been confiscated by the respondent-MCD on 8^th May, 2024, have still not been released. He further submits that the penalty imposed by the respondents may also be waived.

¶25

The petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the respondentMCD for release of his goods and also make an application for waiver of the penalty, which shall be considered by the MCD on its merits. The application shall be made by the petitioner to the concerned officer of respondent, i.e., Administrative Officer of the Karol Bagh Zone, for release of the goods. The said application shall be considered accordingly by the concerned official.

¶26

Recording the aforesaid undertaking made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner shall vend strictly in accordance with the terms of the CoV, it is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to vend, in case there is no violation by the petitioner of the terms and conditions of the CoV.

¶27

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.

¶28

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶29

MAY 16, 2024 mk

¶30

Mohan Lal v. Shri Gyanesh Bharti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal v. Shri Gyanesh Bharti 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

Burlington Luxury Brands Private Limited and Ors. Vs Genesis Finance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Smt. Paramjit Kaur Vs Mr. Kamal Yadav & Ors.

Parveen Kumar Vs Kapil Goyal & Ors.

Parveen Kumar Vs Kapil Goyal & Ors.

Surender Kumar Vs Garima Gupta

Richa Bhutani Vs Manish Bhutani

Mayank Singhee Vs R C Mishra

Mohd Parvez Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Burlington Luxury Brands Private Limited and Ors. Vs Genesis Finance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Sh. Inderjeet Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Shri Subhash Vs Delhi Development Authority DDA & Ors.

Inderjit Mehta Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Sh Amarjit Mehta Vs Major General Hari Singh

Jitender & Anr. Vs Ms. Navneet Mann & Anr.

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.