Sodan Singh vs N. D. M. C - 1998 Supreme(SC) 161

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1998 Supreme(SC) 161

1998(2) Supreme 158
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
S.B. Majmudar and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Sodan Singh -Appellant
versus
N.D.M.C. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15257 of 1987)
Decided on 4-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : R.F. Nariman, Raju Ramachandran, D.D. Thakur, M.P. Verma, Sr. Advocates, M.M. Kashyap, Dhan Singh Nagar, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, (Mrs. M.R. Bhardwaj) Advocate (NP), Harish Chander, Mrs. B.K. Brar, M.K. Singh, Ashok K. Srivastava) Advocate for Petitioner-in-person in I.A. No. 67, Santosh Gupta, K.K. Gupta, Arun K. Sinha, Rajeev Sharma, Krishan Mahajan, P.H. Parekh, Amit Dhingra, N.K. Sahoo, Dr. I.B. Gaur, S.S. Ray. Ms. Rakhi Ray, H.A. Raichura, Manoj Prasad, S.D. Sharma, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Ms. Subhadara Chaturvedi, Rajesh Nair, Ms. Suman Rastogi, Shiv Pujan Singh, (Irshad Ahmad) Advocate (NP), Kirpal Singh, Debashish Misra, Mr. V. Menon, L.K. Gupta, Rajiv Kaul, Adhya Gupta, D.K. Garg, K.G. Bhagat, (P. Chowdhary) Advocate (NP), Ms. Rani Chhabra) Advocate for Ms. Indira Sawhney, Advocate in I.A. No. 127, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, K.L. Vohra, P.C. Mudgal, Mohan Pandey, K.B. Rohatgi, Ms. Aparna Rohatgi Jain, (S.B. Sharma) Advocate for Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocate in I.A. No. 0120, M.A. Krishnamurthy, (P.H. Parekh) Advocate for Sita Ram, Advocate in I.A. No. 68 R.K. Maheshwari, Shalley Bhasin, Advocates.

Headnote:Public Interest Case concerning the hawkers, squatters, etc. in public streets in the New Delhi Municipal Committee area-This judgment is in continuation of two earlier judgments of this court-In first Sodan Singh case, this Court directed the NDMC to frame a scheme in regard to the areas or places where hawking/squatting is to be permitted and as to the number of squatters that could be allowed-NDMC submitted a detailed scheme-However, question of eligibility was to be examined by a separate Committee-Appointment of Thareja Committee with direction that the decision by the Committee shall be binding and final-5627 claims filed before the Committee-Report submitted in May 1996-Interim applications filed against adverse orders passed against some of the claimants-Tentative allocation-Eligibility criterion-Indentification of sites-Objections of NDMC in respect of some sites rejected-Procedure recommended to be followed while making final allotments-Approved -Order of immediate eviction of unauthorised squatters/hawkers-Ban on further IAs-Appointment of the Chaturvedi Committee for the purpose of final allotment of the places to the authorised squatters/hawkers-Court laid down the procedure to be followed by the Committee.
       Held : The Thareja Committee took up the question of identification of sites. Fourteen sub areas in the 5 zones were identified. Other areas which were not accepted by N.D.M.C., were subjected to detailed scrutiny to find out if the objections raised by the NDMC were tenable. The Thareja Committee, in Chapter II, has dealt with the individual sites in each zone (page 56 to 310) and took up the objections of the NDMC in respect of each site, and rejected almost all the objections of the N.D.M.C., particularly in regard to lucrative areas. The Committee has given elaborate and very tenable and rational reasons. This part of the Report is from page 56 to page 310, nearly 250 pages. We shall deal with these areas lower down. The Committee has also gone into claims of individual claimants and found only 760 as eligible persons to be accommodated. This figure is in addition to the cases of ‘hardship’. The Committee also compiled a separate volume (volume 2) of the Report in respect of the names of eligible applicants, their trade, and their seniority and details of the area occupied (6 x 4 or 4 x 3 or stall-kiosk) alongwith the photograph of the particular claimant. The Committee here referred to the 760 claimants and also the other cases coming under the category of hardship. This volume 2 runs to more than 200 pages. As to eligibility of squatting at various places, the Committee considered several claimants eligible and made tentative allotments, subject to final allotment later on. (Para 16)
       Thus the occupation of these places by eligible squatters as decided by the Thareja Committee is only tentative and subject to regular allotment after a decision is arrived to as to whether the places in regard to which the NDMC claimed exclusion (see below) would be accepted by the Thareja Committee and by this Court. The tentative allocation by the Thareja Committee is also subject to further final allotment on the basis of priorities between the three groups of squatters i.e. those before 1977, those between 1977 to 1980 and those between 1981 to 1987. Final allotment depended also on seniority and reservation ratio of the squatters in each of the three groups. (Para 17)
       For the purpose of final allotment of the places to the authorised squatters/hawkers as per their seniority, and to consider the three options of each person, and for the purpose of deciding the quantum of arrears of tehbazari charges for the period after 1.1.90, we will be nominating a particular authority. (Para 40)
       We hereby nominate Sri V.C. Chaturvedi, presently working as Joint Registrar in the High Court of Delhi to undertake the various duties and functions enumerated as above (which are again summarised below) and complete the job, as far as possible, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. (Para 50)

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Leave granted.

2. This judgment is in continuation of two earlier judgments of this Court rendered in this very case, which is a public interest case concerning the hawkers, squatters, etc. in the public streets in the New Delhi Municipal Committee area. The first of the judgments was rendered by a Constitution Bench on 30.8.1989 in Sodan Singh v. N.D.M.C.1, and the second was rendered on 13.3.1992 by a three Judge Bench in Sodan Singh v. N.D.M.C.2. In sub para 6 of para 10 of the latter judgment, all cases then pending except one (the case now before us) were treated as disposed of and claimants were permitted to seek further directions in future as and when the Thareja Committee Report (to which we shall presently refer) was given. The said report was given in May 1996 and thereafter about 130 I.As were filed in this S.L.P. pursuant to the permission granted as stated above. We heard these IAs. We have also heard the objections of the N.D.M.C. to the Thareja Committee Report. Counsel made various submissions on 6th, 7th and 8th January. Several IAs were rejected at the time of the said hearing. In some IAs where the claimants were found ‘eligible’ by the Thareja Committee, orders was passed adopting the recommendations of the Committee as orders of the Court subject to “general directions” to be given in the case now before us. Some IAs of ‘eligible’ claimants were adjourned and are being disposed of separately.

3. We shall make a brief reference to the events which have taken place hitherto and then deal with the issues argued before us.

The first Sodan Singh case - 1989(4) SCC 155 :

4. This decision was by a Constitution Bench of this Court and was rendered on 30.8.1989. It was held that the right to carry on trade or business was not covered by Article 21 of the Constitution of India but was covered by Article 19 (1)(g) and could be reasonably restricted by law made under Article 19(6). It was held that hawking on road--sides fell within the expression occupation, trade or business’ in Article 19(1)(g). It was also held that all pucca streets and roads vest in the State but the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public and the members of the public are beneficiaries entitled to use them as a matter of right. The Municipality has full authority to permit ‘hawkers and squatters’ on the side walks wherever the Municipality considers it practicable and convenient, under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (or Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957). But there cannot be a fundamental right vested in a citizen to occupy any particular place on the pavement where he can squat and engage in trading business. Nor can the hawkers assert a fundamental right to occupy any place permanently on a pavement. If the circumstances are appropriate and a small trader can do some business for personal gain on the pavement to the advantage of the general public and without discomfort or annoyance to others, there can be no objection. Hawkers cannot be permitted to squat on every road. Various circumstances - such as whether the road is narrow, whether it is located close to a hospital or whether there is need for security measures in a particular area, etc. and similar relevant factors are to be taken into account for permitting business on a particular road. Licence has to be given for trading but this does not mean that licence is to be given on a daily basis. Regard must be had also to the provisions of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and Delhi Control of Vehicular and other Traffic on Roads and Street Regulation, 1980. This Court, on a consideration of all the above factors, directed the New Delhi Municipal Committee to frame a scheme in regard to the areas or places where hawking/squatting is to be permitted and as to the number of squatters that could be allowed. The authorities would be fully justified in refusing and facility to hawkers who sell constly luxury articles. The ri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 161

Cases Referred (2)