SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(SC) 433

S. NATARAJAN, E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, KULDIP SINGH, L. M. SHARMA, N. D. OJHA
Sodan Singh – Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Committee – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.Sanghi, A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.M.SANGHVI, A.P.SINGH, A.S.BAVA, A.S.PUNDIR, Abha Jain, AJIT SINGH BAVA, AMIAN GHOSH, ANIS AHMED, ARUN JAITLEY, Arun K.Sinha, ARUNESHVAR GUPTA, Atul Nanda, B.B.Sawhney, B.B.TAVAKLEY, B.S.BALI, Baldev Atreya, BINA GUPTA, BINU TARNTA, D.Bhandari, D.D.SHARMA, D.D.THAKUR, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, Dhruv Mehta, G.RAMASVAMY, GITANJALI, GOBINDA MUKHOTY, INDERBIR SINGH, Indra Sawhney, J.P.PATHAK, JITENDRA SHARMA, K.B.ROHTAGI, K.K.GUPTA, K.N.Rai, Kirpal Singh, L.K.GUPTA, L.M.SINGHVI, M.B.LAL, M.C.DHINGRA, M.M.KASHYAP, Madhu Bhandari, Madhu Khatri, MANJIT CHAWLA, MANSUR ALI, MRIDULA RAY BHARDVAJ, N.GANAPATHI, N.K.BAKSHI, N.K.SAHU, N.VAZIRI, NANITA SHARMA, O.P.Sharma, P.H.Parekh, P.K.JAIN, P.K.MANOHARAN, P.P.Rao, PANDEY MUKUL KUMAR, R.B.DATAR, R.C.GUBRELE, R.C.KAUSHIK, R.D.UPADHYAY, R.F.NARIMAN, R.K.MAHESHWARI, R.K.Sharma, R.M.TIWARI, R.N.KESHWANI, Rajesh Agarwal, RAJIV SHARMA, RANI JETHMALANI, RANJIT GHOSAL, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.K.DHINGRA, S.K.MEHTA, S.M.Ashri, S.N.BHATT, S.S.HUSSAIN, S.SRINIVASA VARMA, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA, SHISHIR SHARMA, SUNIL KULKARNI, SUNITA SHARMA, SUSHADRA, SUSHMA SURI, URMILA KAPUR, V.B.SAHARYA, V.K.VARMA, V.M.TARKUNDE, VIJAY VERMA, VIMLA SINHA, Vivek Sharma, Y.K.Jain

JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.—(On behalf of himself, Venkataramiah C.JI., Natarajan and N. D. Ojha, JJ.) :- The petitioners in all these cases claim the right to engage in trading business on the pavements of roads of the city of Delhi. They have asserted that they have been pursuing their trade with the permission of the municipal authorities for some time, but recently there has been illegal interference by them. Some of the petitioners have moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and others impugn adverse judgments of the Delhi High Court dismissing their claim.

2. As the petitioners have challenged the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Pyarelal v. N. D. M. C. (1967) 3 SCR page 747 these cases were placed for hearing before a larger Bench.

3. The petitioners, in their applications before this Court, have alleged that they were allowed by the respondents to transact their business by occupying a particular area on the pavements, on payment of certain charges described as Tehbazari. It is contended that the municipal authorities by their refusal to permit the petitioners to continue with their trade are violating their fundamental right guaranteed






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top