Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 1574
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINGH, ARUN KUMAR, JJ.
Sudhir Madan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M.C.D. & Ors. – Respondents
with
Ram Swaroop & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & Ors. - Respondent
with
Raj Kumar Ghai - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & Ors. - Respondent
with
Rajender Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
S.P. Aggarwal & Ors. - Respondent
with
Hawkers Welfare Committee - Petitioner
Versus
S.P. Aggarwal & Anr. - Respondent
with
Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal - Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Mehta & Ors. - Respondent
with
Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal - Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Mehta & Ors. - Respondent
with
M/s. Swatantra Bharat Store - Petitioner
Versus
Dharshan Lal & Ors. - Respondent
with
M/s. Beopar Sangh - Petitioner
Versus
Dharshan Lal & Ors. - Respondent
with
Hawkers Welfare Committee - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & Ors. - Respondent
with
Harbhajan Singh Bedi - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & Ors. - Respondent
with
Shri Pramod Kumar & Anr. - Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, MCD & Anr. - Respondent
With
Ram Mohan Gautam - Petitioner
Versus
State Through Secretary, Delhi Admn. - Respondent
with
Raj Karan - Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. - Respondent
with
Subhash Chand & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
O.P. Balwani & Anr. - Respondent
with
Godwari Devi - Petitioner
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council - Respondent
with
Vijay Pandey & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & Ors. - Respondent
with
Om Pal etc. - Petitioner
Versus
Asstt. Commr., M.C.D. & Anr. - Respondent
with
Sudhir Madan & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & Ors. - Respondent
with
New Lajpat Rai Market Patri Hawkers Union - Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. - Respondent
WITH
Nand Kishore & Anr. - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & Ors. - Respondent
with
Sh. Santosh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & ors. - Respondent
with
M/s. Chandini Chowk Hawkers Association (Regd.) - Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Mehta & Ors. - Respondent
with
Chandini Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal - Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Rakesh Mehta & Ors. - Respondent
with
President, Delhi Hawkers Maulik Adhikar Suraksha Manch - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & Ors. - Respondent
With
Gram Kalyankari Yuva Sanstha - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. & Anr. - Respondent
with
Pratap Singh & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
N.D.M.C. & ORS. - Respondent
with
Sodan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
N.D.M.C. & Ors. - Respondent
with
Ramesh Kumar and Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council - Respondent
with
Siya Ram & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. - Respondent
I.A. NO. 394 IN I.A. NO. 356 IN WP (C) NO. 1699 of 1987, I.A. No. 366 in WP(C) No. 1699 of 1987, Contempt Petition (C) No. 125 of 2001, Contempt Petition (C) No. 126 of 2001, Contempt Petition (C) 506 of 2002, I.A. No. 396 in Contempt Petition (C) 506 of 2002, Contempt Petition (C) No.D4984 of 2003, Contempt Petition (C) No.D4985 of 2003, I.A.No.361 in W.P.(C) No.1699 of 1987, I.A.No.389 in W.P.(C) No.1699 of 1987, I.A.No.392 in W.P.(C) No.1699 of 1987, I.A.No. In W.P. (C) No.1699 of 1987, W.P.(C) No.535 of 2001, CONMT. PET.(Civil) No.D15102 of 2003, W.P.(C) No.678 of 2002, W.P.(C) No.240 of 2004, I.A.NOS.397-398 IN WP(C) NO.1699 of 1987, I.A.NO.399 IN I.A.NO.394, IN W.P.(C) NO.1699 of 1987, I.A.NOS.1-2 IN WP(C) NO.100 of 2002, I.A.NO... of 2005 IN I.A.NO.394 IN IA NO.356 IN WP(C) NO.1699 of 1987, I.A.NO.400 IN W.P.(C) NO.1699 of 1987, I.A.NO.401 IN I.A. 396 IN C.P. 506 of 2002, I.A. IN C.P. 506 of 2002, I.A.NO.402 IN W.P.(C) 1699 of 1987, SLP(C) No.7025 of 2003, SLP(C) No.20593 of 2003, I.A.NO.200-202 and 204-205 & CRLMP.NO.1148 In C.A.NO. 560 of 1998, SLP(C)...CC NO. 7760 of 2005, SLP(C) No. 17472 of 2005
Decided on : 03-03-2006
For the Petitioner:- Mr. K.N. Rai, Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Mr. Amlan Kumar Ghosh, Mr. A.P. Mohanty, Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Mr. Bharat Sangal, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Mr. G.K. Bansal, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mr. K.C. Dua, Mr. K.K. Mohan, Mr.K.N. Rai, Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Mr. Manoj Prasad, M/s Manoj Swarup & Co., M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., Mr. N. Ganpathy, Mr. P. Narasimhan, Mr. P.K. Manohar, Mr. R.K. Maheshwari, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Mr. R.C. Kaushik, Mrs. Gowri Karuna Das, Ms. Anu Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Singh, Mr. Kamal Kant Tripathi, Mr. Sanjay M. Tripathi, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Mr. S.K. Sabharwal, Mr. S.K. Sinha, Mr. Shree Pal Singh, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Mr. S. Srinivasan, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Mr. S.N. Bhat, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Mr. Sandeep Narain, Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta-II, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Mr. N.K. Saha, Mrs. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, Ms. Kavita Wadia, (IA 389) Mr. Mohan Pandey, Adv.(WP(C) 1699/1987) Mr. S.S. Bandyopadhyay, (In I.A. 392) Mr. Anil Gupta, Mr. C.S. Ashri, (SLP 7025/03)Mr. S.N. Pandey, Mr. A.K. Singh, Mr. Abhishekh Aggarwal, Mr. C.S. Ashri, (in SLP(C) 7025/03) Mr. S.N. Pandey, Mr. C.S. Ashri, Mr. Balraj Dewan, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Mr. Surya Kant, Dr. S.K. Verma, Mr. P.H. Parekh, Mr. Rohit Alex, Mr. Rajiv Mishra, M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co., Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Mr. N.K. Saha, Mr. Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Advocates.
For the Respondent (s):- Ms. Binu Tamta, Mr. P.H. Parekh, M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the M.C.D.:- Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Mr. Rajan Narain, Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mr. Shiv Kumar, (A.C.)
For the U.O.I. - Mr. Krishan Mahajan, Mr. Vijay Verma, Mr. Deeksha Mishra, Advocates.
For the Delhi Police :- Mr. Vikas Singh, ASG. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For the UOI/MCD :- Mr. Vikas Singh, ASG. Mr. Raghu Nath Kapur, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates (CP 506/02) Mr. Vikas Singh, ASG., Mrs. Swarupa Reddy, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mr. Kishan Mahajan, Ms. Deeksha Mishra, Advocates.
For the N.D.M.C. - Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Ms. Jahanvi Warah, Mr. Surya Kant, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Mr. Indu Malhotra, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Mr. S.C. Patel, Mr. N.K. Saha, Mr. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
The fundamental rights of citizens to use public spaces must be upheld, and any scheme for urban street vendors must be practical and consistent with these rights.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Urban Street Vendors - National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004 - M.C.D. and N.D.M.C. - Unauthorized Hawking - Squatting on Public Land
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed the issue of unauthorized hawkers and squatters occupying public roads, streets, footpaths, and parks, emphasizing the rights of citizens to use these spaces.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the New Delhi Municipal Council to frame a scheme in line with the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004, and to remove unauthorized occupants from public spaces.
Issues: Constitution of Ward Vending Committees, unauthorized occupation of public spaces, and the need for a practical and citizen-centric scheme for urban street vendors.
Ratio Decidendi: The fundamental rights of citizens to use public spaces must be upheld, and any scheme for urban street vendors must be practical and consistent with these rights.
Final Decision: The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the New Delhi Municipal Council were directed to frame a scheme within eight weeks, remove unauthorized occupants from public spaces, and submit compliance reports. The matters were scheduled to come up on 5.5.2006.
ORDER :
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi affirmed on 13th January, 2006. Information, which was required, has been given, but we find that all the Ward Vending Committees have not yet been constituted, particularly in the Central Zone. Ten Committees have yet to be constituted, which, we are told, will be constituted within two weeks.
2. It is not possible for this Court to look into each individual grievance, neither will it be practicable for this Court to issue directions in each case. This being a Public Interest Litigation, we are only required to provide the guidelines consistent with public interest so that the roads, streets, footpaths, parks, etc. are not illegally occupied by unauthorized hawkers, squatters etc. We have also to keep in mind the principle that the right to use the pathway, footpath etc. is that of the citizens. No hawker can claim a right to defeat the rights of other citizens. The hawkers are large in number, but the population of citizens is many times more than that of hawkers and, therefore, the fundamental rights of the citizens cannot be put in jeopardy by permitting hawkers and squatters to block roads, footpaths, public parks, etc., etc. The Authority, which frame a scheme, has to keep this paramount consideration in mind. Consistent with the rights of citizens, if it is possible to provide any space to hawkers, squatters etc., that may be done consistent with the policy to be framed by the concerned Authority. The Authority will have to consider on what principles hawking and no hawking zone have to be carved out. It will also have to consider in which zones no hawking activity can be permitted. It will also have to consider what nature of goods can be sold by hawkers, squatters, etc. so that cleanliness is maintained and at the same time free flow of traffic and movement of pedestrians is not obstructed. We do not wish to give the authorities an impression that the streets, lanes, footpaths and the parks exist only for hawkers. The reality is that they exist for the benefit of the ordinary people living in those localities. The concept of starting hawking business early in the morning or late in the evening may also have to be reconsidered in the light of recent developments in the city, particularly with the advent of Metro and progress made in widening roads for use by the ordinary citizens. We cannot lose sight of the fact that street hawkers have also increased in number. All these concerns are important and the authority framing the scheme must keep these considerations in mind. The scheme need not be populist in its appeal, but must be practical and consistent with the rights of citizens, who have a fundamental right to use the roads, parks and other public conveniences provided by the State.
3. These are other such considerations must permeate the thinking of the authorities, who have been vested with power to frame a scheme. We, therefore, call upon the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as well as the New Delhi Municipal Council to frame a scheme keeping in mind the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004. The National Policy has to be implemented keeping in view the conditions that exist in different parts of the city and no uniform formula can be applied. We call upon the M.C.D. and the N.D.M.C. to file their schemes with details within a period of eight weeks from today. The schemes must contain the reasons for the provisions made therein so that there can be a useful discussion and all persons interested may be able to participate with their own constructive suggestions. We are informed that the N.D.M.C. had framed a Scheme in the year 1989, but that may require revision in the light of changed circumstances and the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004. The N.D.M.C. may also in the light of these developments submit their Scheme with such modifications as they propose to make, if any. In any event, a comprehensive document shoul
