DHARAM CHAND versus CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 29-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2015] 9 S.C.R. 126 
B'HARAM CHAND 
v. 
CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCILAND 
OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 5779 of 2015) 
JULY29, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
c 
Tehbazari Rights - Relocation of Kiosk of a squatter -
From the existing site (outside Supreme Court) - On account 
of safety and security of Supreme Court- Propriety of- Held: 
Though the squatter has a right to earn his livelihood - But 
in view of serious issue of safety and security, court cannot 
D direct the administration to allow continuance of such a kiosk 
- The purpose involving general interest of community as 
opposed to the individual interest has to be balanced - The 
order refusing to permit the squatter to run his business in 
the Kiosk is justified- Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 19(1) 
E (g) and 19(2) - New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 -
s.388(0) (5). 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1. There are various circumstances justifying 
the refusal to permit the appellant to run his business in 
the kiosk in question. Notwithstanding the constitutional 
right of a citizen to carry on business; but such right is 
subject to certain restrictions. It cannot be disputed that 
G there are certain areas which may be required to keep 
free of such types of kiosks fer security reasons. The 
Court cannot direct the administration to allow such a 
· kiosk. [Para 19] [137-8-C] 
H 
2. On the one hand, appellant has a right to earn his 
livelihood, but on the other hand there is serious issue 
126 
DHARAM CHAND v. CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI 
127 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 
of safety and security of the premises near the Supreme A 
Court compound. Hence, the Court has to balance 
between the two. The purpose involving general interest 
of community as opposed to the interest of individuat 
directly or indirectly has to be balanced. Merely because 
after the bomb blasts took place in Delhi High Court B 
compound in 2011, no such incident happened till date, 
the Court cannot assume and presume that there is no 
threat to the safety and security of the Supreme Court 
and its vicinity and allow the appellant to continue the 
said business. [Para 20] [137-D-G] 
C 
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and Another vs. 
Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Anr., 201 
(9) SCR 742 = 2014(1) SCC 490- relied on. 
Sadan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 1989 
(3) SCR 1038 = 1989 (4) SCC 155; Kharak Singh vs. 
State of U.P, (1964) 1 SCR 332- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1989 (3) SCR 1038 
(1964) 1 SCR 332 
2001 (9) SCR 742 
referred to 
referred to 
relied on 
para 3 
para 7 
para 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5779 of2015 
D 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2014 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. G 
675 of 2014 
Salman Khurshid, Tripurari Ray, Anil Kaushik, lmtiaz 
Ahemd, Rajinder Singh, Anupama Sharma, (for Vishnu 
Sharma) for the Appellant. 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Rakesh Kumar Khanna,Anirudh Janwar,Arjun Krishnan, 
R. Bala Subramanian, R. S. Nagar, Santosh Kumar, D. S. 
Mahra, Harish Pandey for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
B 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. 
Leave granted. 
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment dated 13.11.2014 of the Division Bench of the Delhi 
High Court, which dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal 
C preferred by the appellant against the decision of learned 
Single Judge of the High Court, which dismissed the 
appellant's writ petition challenging the order dated 03.12.2013 
issued by the Enforcement Department, New Delhi Municipal 
Council (NDMC) deciding to relocate the appellant (a squatter) 
D from his existing site outside Supreme Court to a site near 
Gate of Baroda House adjacent to the existing stalls due to 
security reasons. 
3. The appellant's case in brief is that since 1965 he was 
squatting in the area of Chandni Chowk as a Hawker selling 
E cloths and thereafter Tehbaz~ri of selling tea was given by the 
NDMC to him at Bhagwan Das Road and he remained there 
till 1982, when he was shifted to the present place opposite to 
the Supreme Court.· In 1989, a large number of writ petitions 
claiming a right to trade on the pavements in different parts of 
F 
Delhi were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and the 
Apex Court appointed a Committee known as Thareja 
Committee to examine the claims made by the squatters in 
the light of Scheme prepared by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.