LexPATRI VYAPAR MANDAL DELHI (REGD) versus M.C.D. TOWN HALL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 5 S.C.R. 784 PATRI VYAPAR MANDAL DELHI (REGD) v. M.C.D. TOWN HALL & ORS. (Writ Petition (C) No.1699 of 1987) APRIL 9, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] HAWKER MATTERS: C NATIONAL POLICY ON URBAN STREET VENDORS (NPSV), 2004: Schemes framed by MCD and NDMC for running business by squatters/hawkers in Delhi - Ward Vending Committees and Zonal Vending Committees and Appellate D Committee constituted under NPSV - Interim applications for directions - Held: As regards reduction of width of footpath from 5 ft., no direction could be passed by the Court - Zonal Vending Committees would undertake the exercise and would submit their report to the Court within three months - In view E of Court's order dated 6.2.2007, banning transfer of tehbajaril vending sites, no transfer made after 6.2.2007 by way of change of hands, sale etc. would be allowed and any such transfer, if made, would be illegal and subject to eviction in accordance with law - So far as applicability of Delhi Laws F Special Provisions Act, 2007 is concerned, provisions thereof have to be implemented and none of the orders passed by the Court would be deemed to have been passed in derogation of or contrary to provisions of Delhi Act - In order to check illegal transfers MCD would take immediate steps to carry out G photo census of all existing squatters/hawkers allotted with tehbazarilvending sites - Photo census shall also be compulsory for all future allotments - With regard to establishment of weekly markets and giving preference to women vendors, it is reiterated that it is for MCD to consider H 784 PATRI VYAPAR MANDAL DELHI (REGO) v. M.C.D. TOWN 785 ' HALL & ORS. the request and to take appropriate decisions in that regard A .. as the same lies in the domain of policy decision - Delhi Laws Special Provisions Act, 2007. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1699 of 2007. B Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Indira Jaising, Ranjit Kumar, Rakesh K. Khanna, Kavita Wadia, Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Surya Kant, Pranav Vyas, Shailya Sinha, Amrit Singh, Asha G. Nair, M.M. Kashyap, Lalit Khanna, c Madhu Moolchndani, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Subramonium Prasad, Mohan Pandey, S.C. Patel, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Prasanthi Prasad, Gouri Karuna Das, Anu Gupta, Bhakati Pasrija, Rani Jethmalani, K.K. Mohan, S.K. Verma Shakeel Ahmed, Kamini Jaisawal, Prasant Bhushan, Somesh Rattan, D V.K. Verma, Shanker K. Jha, T.V. George, Manak, Indra Sawhney, Kiran Bhardwaj, Suishma Suri, B.K. Prasad, S. Wasirfi A. Qadri, M.P.S. Tamar, Varuna Bhandari, Mu~es~ Verma, Anil Katiyar, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sanjiv Sen, Praveen Swarup, Geeta Luthra, D.N. Ggoburdhan and Ranjan Narain for E the Petitioners. The following Order of the Court was delivered ) DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. By this common order we propose to dispose of various applications filed by F the parties hereto including the one which has been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short the 'MCD'). 2. Delhi being the capital of India has many peculiar problems. One of the problems in naturally its population which G has increased manifold obviously due to influx of people from various regions and States looking for new openings and avocations. Space availability in Delhi is very limited and within that limited space available at its disposal the municipalties namely the MCD and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (in H short the 'NDMC') have to manage all their activities including 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A functioning of the markets at different places. 3. Limited space available for effective functioning of markes including accommodation available for the spuatters and hawkers to carry on their small business has been receiving 8 attention of this Court for quite a long time. In that regard, several orders have been passed by this Court from time to time. Pursuant to such orders of this Court the MCD as well as the NDMC have framed Schemes for running of the business by the squatters/hawkers. In response to the Schemes, mearly 85,000 people applied for allotment of spaces within the MCD C area and about 10,000 people applied for such allotment within the NDMC area seeking settlement of the tehbazari rights under the Schemes as formulated by the MCD and the NDMC. Due to want of space only about three thousand of such applicants out of the aforesaid applications r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.