Writ petition challenging the exclusion of a hawker from the rehabilitation list for old Tehri town. The court rejected the petitioner's claim citing lack of evidence and dismissed the writ petition under Article 226.
Writ petition dismissed with no relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2210 of 2009 (M/S)
Mohmad Inam Siddiqui
…..Petitioner Versus
Director of Rehabilitation and others
......….Respondents
Present:
Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).
Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.8.2009 passed by the Grievances Redressal Forum, Tehri Dam Project, New Tehri, which was constituted pursuant to the direction issued by Hon’ble Apex Court dated 24.4.2007, consisting of one retired judicial officer of the rank of Additional District Judge and Collector, Tehri Garhwal.
Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was resident of Ward No. 4 of old Tehri; the petitioner was earlier selling the vegetables as hawker, however, right from 1985 was selling the ladies items i.e. bangles, etc. as a hawker in old Tehri city; a certificate was issued by the Executive Officer of Municipality, Tehri on 22.7.2002 certifying that the petitioner had been carrying out the business right from 1984 to 2001, earlier as vegetables vendor and thereafter as ladies item vendor; as per clause (XII) of the Rehabilitation Policy dated 9.12.1998, whosoever was carrying on business in old Tehri town from 6.6.1985 to 2001 was to be allotted shop under the rehabilation policy.
2
Learned Grievances Redressal Forum, in the impugned order, has held that undisputedly the petitioner was not having any shop and he claimed that he was doing business as hawker on the street within the municipal area of old Tehri town. It was further held that the District Administration carried out survey and inspection to find out the hawkers for the rehabilitation purposes; Initially, District Administration was pleased to forward names of 107 hawkers to the State Government and that list was approved by the State Government vide order dated 15.10.2005, however, thereafter few other hawkers represented and again it was decided to undertake fresh survey and inspection to find out the actual number of the hawkers for the rehabilitation purposes; A notification was got published in various newspapers inviting representations from various hawkers left to be included in the list approved on 15.10.2005. Again the survey/inspection team forwarded name of 42 more hawkers, however, the name of the petitioner was not recommended.
It is further held by the Forum that the petitioner could not produce any evidence to prove that he was working as a hawker between 6.6.1985 to 2005 when old Tehri town was submerged under the water. It is further held that the certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the Municipality cannot be read in evidence in view of the fact that the Executive Officer had absolutely no personal knowledge as to whether the petitioner was carrying business in the old Tehri town.
On being asked, Mr. Siddharh Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, could not point out any evidence except the certificate of the Executive Officer of the Municipality to prove that in fact the
3
petitioner was in continuous business of hawker from 6.6.1985 to 2005 when entire old Tehri city was submerged under the water. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that in the list prepared by the inspection team and approved by the State Government dated 15.10.2005 and in the subsequent list prepared by the Committee recommending the names of 42 other hawkers, petitioner’s name was intentionally dropped therefrom.
This Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, shall not disturb the finding of fact recorded by the appropriate forum unless and until same is proved to be perverse, incorrect and illegal on the face of it. There is nothing on record to prove that the list prepared by the inspection team and approved by the State Government and the other list of 42 hawkers prepared by the Committee constituted by the Government were wrong and the name of the petitioner was deliberately dropped therefrom.
Consequently, I do not find any reason to take contrary view to the view taken by the Grievances Redressal Forum. Thus, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
CLMA No. 11420 of 2009 also stands disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Singh, J.) 26.5.2014
Avneet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the Grievances Redressal Forum excluding the petitioner from the hawker list for rehabilitation is perverse given the lack of conclusive evidence regarding his period of busines
Whether the certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the Municipality constitutes sufficient evidence to prove the petitioner was carrying on business as a hawker during the relevant period.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohmad Inam Siddiqui
Director of Rehabilitation and others
Alok Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
