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

1994 Supreme(SC) 321

R.M.SAHAI, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, A.M.AHMADI
Gainda Ram – Appellant
Versus
M. C. D – Respondent


ORDER

1. The IA Nos. 19, 29 and 30 taken on board.

2. The main grievance of the hawkers/squatters is that the MCD Committee is allocating space on proximity to residence basis which rendered their right to allocation at the place where they were trading redundant. It must be clarified that it may not be possible for MCD to accommodate all the claimants in one single zone if the total available space therein is insufficient. In that case some of the claimants will have to be dislodged. This depends on the identification done by the MCD Committee on the criteria approved earlier as per the Scheme. The grievance that even people who have been trading in a given zone for long number of years are not accommodated on the basis of their seniority i.e. length of presence, and are asked to move out on the residence-proximity criteria is somewhat genuine. We, therefore, think that the proper course to adopt is to obtain from them their preferences in regard to zones where they would like to be accommodated. Thereafter, on the basis of their seniority as may be established before the Committee they may, as far as possible, be accommodated on the basis of their preference in the respective zones





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