GAINDA RAM AND ORS. ETC. versus M.C.D. AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1181 · Decided: 01-05-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GAINDA RAM AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
M.C.D. AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 1997 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Hawkers Matter: 
Delhi Hawkers Matter-Hawkers-Rehabilitation oKlaims of allot-
ment of squatting site~R.C. Chopra Reporl-Accepted by the Court with 
C 
some modification~Directions given to implement the accepted part of the 
report and to decide the eligibility of squatters accordingl~Applicants held 
ineligible by the MCD to be given opportunity to make representations for 
review of their cases-MCD directed to carry out fresh exercise to identify new 
approved squatting sites in all the 12 zones of MCD-MCD directed to publish 
the gist of this order and to intimate the squatters concerned to remain present D 
at notified places on specified dates for supporting their claims-In case any 
of the squatters is aggrieved by rejection of his claim by MCD, he may file 
written representation before Shri R. C. Chopra, whose decision on the matter 
shall be final. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 97. 
IN 
Writ Petition (C) No. 1699 of 1987 Etc. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
E 
F 
Arun Jaitley, Krishna Mahajan, P.H. Parekh, N.K. Sahoo, Maninder 
Singh, Chandan Ramamurthy, Kirpal Singh, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, 
Debasis Misra, S. Balakrishnan, V. M. Issar, Subramanium Prasad, Irsad G 
Ahmad, M.M. Kashyap, D.S. Nagar, Anil Kr. Gupta-II, P.K. Manohar, 
Anis Suhrawardy, Sanjeev Anand, M.K. Giri, Vineet Maheshwari, D.K. 
Garg, P.K. Maheshwari, Varinder Kr. Sharma and P.S. Jha for the appear-
ing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
1181 
H 
1182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
IA. No. 37 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987 
Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court dated May 13, 1994, a 
Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional District & Sessions Judge was 
appointed to look into the question as to whether the implementation of 
the Scheme by the MCD had been consistent with the norms and proce-
B <lure indicated by this Court and to make a report. Accordingly the High 
Court of Delhi nominated Mr. R.C. Chopra, Additional District & Sessions 
Judge, to examine the Scheme and to make his report. He has submitted 
his report on December 20, 1996. Shri Chopra has taken great pains in 
preparing this report. We record our appreciation for the efforts made by 
C him. So far as his suggestions are concerned, they are found at page 49 of 
the report. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this report. A 
consensus was reached with regard to the suggestions put forward by Shri 
Chopra as at page 50 onwards of his report as suggestions (a), (b) (c), (d), 
D (e), (t) and (g) which are accepted and pursuant thereto requisite direc-
tions are issued as under : 
(a) All .applicants held ineligible shall be given an opportunity by 
MCD to make representations for the review of their cases. Such repre-
E sentations be entertained only in cases where the applicants file copies of 
the documents to show prim a f acie that they were in fact eligible but have 
been declared ineligible by the Zonal Licencing Committees. The Zonal 
Heads of the zones concerned are directed to personally deal with these 
applications and dispose them of within three months. 
F 
G 
(b) In all these Zones where no lists have been prepared regarding 
the squatters falling in category (3) the lists be prepared on the basis of 
the representations as referred to in point (a) above and these lists be 
maintained for future adjustment of the squatters as and when new squat-
ting sites are available. 
(c) Since the number of eligible applicants is about 8000 only in all 
the 12 zones of MCD and in most of the Zones it is less than 1000 each 
the Zonal Heads shall be directed to re-examine these cases with a view 
to weed out those who have been wrongly held eligible. This exercise would 
substantially reduce the number of eligible applicants thereby enhancing 
H the prospects of accommodating those who were wrongly held ineligible. 
GAINDA RAM v. M.C.D. 
1183 
This' exercise would set right wrong seniority also as fixed in many eligible A 
cases. Inter se seniority of the enumerated squatters those of whom will be 
held eligible w.e.f. 23.12.19S2, shall be prepared zonewise by treating the 
squatter who is found to be squatting from the earliest date as the senior-
most and the rest will be arranged in seniority thereafter according to their 
respective dates of continuous squatting. 
( d) A fresh exer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.