Back
2007(4) Supreme 667
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Singh & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Sudhir Madan and others —Appellants
versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others
— Respondents
Writ Petition (civil) 1699 of 1987
ORDER
I.A. NO. 394
IN
I.A. NO. 356
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1699 OF 1987
Decided on : 17-05-2007
Facts of the case :
A Scheme was envisaged by MCD herein in the instant case identifying squatting/vending areas which had to be approved by Zonal Vending Committees.
Scheme relating to identification of squatting\vending areas by MCD was challenged by appellants on plea that scheme proposed by MCD was not satisfactory as survey work to identify hawking and non-hawking zones and sites available ought to have been entrusted to an independent organization.
Findings of the Court :
The Court Relying upon decision in case of Ramesh Shah vs. M.C.D & Ors. held that identification of squatting and non-squatting zones being an administrative function of MCD, no challenge to such identification of squatting and non-squatting zones could be permitted when administrative authority had taken all factors into account. Request that fresh survey ought to be undertaken by an independent expert body to identify hawking sites and existence of hawkers was rejected. Scheme submitted by MCD in regard to vending\ sites\ tehbazari was approved subject to modifications. Policy relating to weekly Bazars Scheme submitted by MCD and NDMC was also approved subject to modification.
JUDGMENT
B.P. SINGH, J.—
1.This order may be read in continuation of our order of 6th February, 2007.
2.When the matter came up before us on 6th February, 2007, all aspects of the Scheme submitted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter for short ‘MCD”) were fully discussed. In the course of discussion, certain suggestions were made which the Court found acceptable and directed the MCD to consider whether those suggestions could be incorporated in the Scheme. The MCD finding the suggestions acceptable has submitted before us a scheme incorporating these suggestions.
3.The Scheme envisages the identification of squatting/vending areas by the Ward Vending Committees which has to be approved by the Zonal Vending Committees which is also empowered to make necessary changes and make allotments accordingly. The identification of the hawkers/squatters occupying those sites has necesarily to be done by the MCD. Ms. Indra Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of SEWA and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for National Association of Street Vendors of India submitted that the Scheme proposed by the MCD is not satisfactory inasmuch as the survey work to identify hawking and non-hawking zones and the sites available should have been entrusted to an independent organisation which at one time was considered by the MCD, but which has been rejected on the plea that it involves considerable expense and time.
4.It appears that such a question was raised before this Court in the case of Ramesh Shah Vs. MCD & Ors. (I.A. No. 332-333 in WP(C) No. 1699/1987) and this Court by order dated 6.11.2000 rejected the submission which has been urged before us, in these words :-
“So far as identification of squatting and non-squatting zones are concerned it is an administrative function of the MCD which is done by taking into account various factors namely, public interest depending mainly upon the congestion in the area and public safety which are the main considerations for any Government. No challenge to such identification of squatting and non-squatting zones can be permitted under any circumstance when the administrative authority has taken all factors in to account. We are not sitting in appeal against any decision made by the administrative authority. We therefore do not permit any challenge to the identification of the squatting and non-squatting zone and to the map as prepared by the MCD showing Green shall be treated as final and shall not be allowed to be questioned.”
In this view of the matter, we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel for the respondents who have contended that fresh survey should be undertaken by an independent expert body or an independent organisation to identify the hawking sites and the existence of hawkers. This is essentially a matter which the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has to consider and take a decision. We cannot issue a writ directing the MCD to do so, this being a matter of policy.
5.We would, however, like to make one small modification in the Scheme so far as it relates to prohibition on cooking of food items. The allottees of Tehbazari/vending sites may be permitted to serve tea or coffee provided it does not result in disposal of any waste and the beverage is served in disposable glasses/cups for which adequate arrnagement is made for safe disposal by the allottees of those sites.
6.The Scheme provides for resolution of disputes between allottee and the MCD by the Zonal Vending Committees and an appeal is provided before the Appellate Authority. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, learned counsel appearing for the MCD accepted the suggestion made that the Scheme shall be modified suitably by providing that the Zonal Vending Committees shall be presided over by a judicial officer not below the rank of Addl. District Judge and the Appellate Committee shall be presided over by a retired High Court Judge. He submitted that necessary amendment in the Scheme shall be carried out accordingly
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
