SODAN SINGH versus N.D.M.C. AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 04-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

T 
SODAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
N.D.M.C. 1\ND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1998 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
New Delhi Municipal Committee-Hawkers/Squatters-A/location of 
sites-Recommendations of Thareja Committee-Acceptance of with 
modifications-Appointment of Chaturvedi Committe-Guidelines and 
directions issued for a/location of sites-Right to change of trade-Held, C 
trade should not be unlawful or one in luxurious goods or smuggled goods-
N.D.M C. may impose reasonable conditions consistent with Articles 19(l)(g) 
and 19(2) of the Constitution-Constitution of India-Articles l 9(l)(g) and 
19(2). 
The New Delhi Municipal Committe, consequent upon the directions of 
this Court in Sadan Singh v. NDMC, [1989] 4 SCC 155, framed a scheme 
with regard to allocation of sites to squatters/hawkers within NDMC area. 
It divided the area into five zones and identified the places where the squatters/ 
hawkers could be permitted to trade in each zone. Under the Scheme, trade 
D 
was permitted only in non-licensable goods excluding luxury items imported E 
or smuggled goods and cooking of sale of food itmes exposed to dust which 
could cause h~alth hazard. Thereafter, the matter was placed before a Lok 
Adalat which observed that the work of allocation of sites to individual 
claimants should be given to a Committee. This Court ordered for appointment 
of the Committee and ultimately Shri Thareja, a Judicial Officer of Delhi, F 
was appointed as a one member-Committee. 
The Thareja Committee identified 116 places in 14 sub-areas of the 
five zones and found that only 760 individual claimants were eligible to be 
accommodated. This figure was in addition to the cases of hardship. The 
Committee compiled the names of eligible applicants, their trade, their G 
seniority and details of the area occupied. The claimants were divided in 
three groups: (i) those continuing from prior to 1977: (ii) prior to 1977-80 
and (iii) between 1981-87. As to eligibility t1f squatting at various places the 
Committee considered the eligibility of the claimants and made tentative 
allotments sub,iect to final allotment later on after the indentified sites were 
approved by this Court with the scheme for allocation and the list of identified H 
629 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A squatters was finalised. 
The Thare.ia Committee )lassed detailed orders and filed its re]Jort 
before this Comi. The instant 130 interim application were filed challenging 
the orders )lassed by the Thareja Committee. 
B 
It was contended for the NDMC that 33 im)lnrtant ]!laces in the five 
' -
+'
zones were wrongly included by the Thare.ia Committee for allocation of 
'1-< 
sites to squatters/ hawkers and they had to be excluded. 
Disposing of the matter, this Comi 
C 
HELD : 1.1. The Thare.ia Committee has based its conclusions on valid 
material and on the existing factual position at the grass-root level. As 
reganls the ob.iection of the NDMC to the inclusion of 33 impo1iant ]JI aces. 
Shri Thareja has also relied U]Jon factual information gathered from ]Jersonal 
visits made by him to the Jllaccs and kept in mind the manner in which the 
D N.D.M.C. had itself already granted ce1iain kiosks, squatting or tehbazari 
rights in these very areas earlier. No excc11tion can be taken to the reasoning 
and conclusions of the Thareja Committee in regard to these items and to 
its ultimate recommendations as to the suitability of these areas. There is 
no ground to modi.fy or set aside the recommendations in regard to these 
sites. In the result, the recommendation is accepted, the objection of the 
E NDMC is rejected and, therefore, these 33 sites would get added to the sites 
already mentioned-resulting in 116 sites. (640-A; 641-A-B] 
F 
1.2. The recommendations of the Thare.ia Committee as to seniority 
are accepted, subject to the orders passed in the IAS que~iioning the adverse 
orders passed by the Committee. [641-C] 
· 1.3. The Thareja Committee rightly recommended time scheduled 
"sunrise to sun-set"-as has been granted to tehbazari. This recommendation 
Y 
is accepted. (639-B] 
1.4. The )lrocedure of allocation of sites recommended by the Thareja 
G Committee and the recommendation for giving three options in the zone is 
accepted ~ub.iect only to one modification that the allocation will be according 
to seniority as decided by the Committee and not by draw of lots. [644-A) 
2.1. Sri V.C. Chaturvedi, working as Joint Registrar in the High 
Court of D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.