Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1882
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Singh and H.S. Bedi, JJ.
Sudhir Madan - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. - Respondent
I.A. No. 394 in I.A. No. 356 in W.P. (C) No. 1699/87, I.A. No. 366 in W.P. (C) No. 1699/87, I.A. NO. 367 IN W.P. (C) NO. 1699/87, Contempt Petition (C) No. 125/01, Contempt Petition (C) No. 126/01, Contempt Petition (C) No. 506/02, Contempt petition (c) No. /2003 (D. No.4984/03), Contempt Petition (c) No. /2003 (d.no.4985/03), I.A. NO. 361 IN W.P. (C) NO. 1699/87, I.A. NO. 389 IN W.P. (C) NO. 1699/87, I.A. NO. 392 IN W.P. (C) NO. 1699/87, I.A. NO... IN W.P.(C) NO. 1699/87, W.P. (C) 535/01, Contempt Petition (C) No. /2003 (D.No.15102/03), W.P.(C) 240/04
Decided On : 6-2-2007
For Petitioner/(s):- Mr. S.K. Sinha, Ms. Aruna Mathur, for M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co., (In I.A. No. 407 & Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Cont. pet.215/06 Ms. Kavita Wadia, Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Mrs. Usha Kumar, Mr. K.K.Mohan, Mrs. Gouri Karuna Das, Ms. Anu Gupta, Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Mr. Kamal Kant Tripathi, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Mr. K.C. Dua, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Mr. S.S. Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Mohan Pandey, Mr. S.N. Pandey, Adv. (In SLP(C) 7025/03) Mr. C.S. Ashri, Adv. Mr. Anil Gupta, (In IA No. 392)Mr. Ajay Garg, Mr. C.S. Ashri, Mr. S.K. Garg, Mr. Balraj Dewan, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Mr. Prasant Bhushan, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
For the MCD:- Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Mr. Mohan Pandey, Mr. S.S. Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv. Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Ms. Shailja Sinha, Ms. Jahanvi Worah, Mr. Surya Kant, Mr. Atul Kumar, Mr. Himanshu Jha, Dr. S.K. Verma, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Ms. Arna Das, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Mrs. Sunita Dwivedi, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocates.
For Respondent(s):- Mr. Shiv Kumar, (A.C.) (NP). Advocates.
For M/O U.D.:- MR. Vikas Singh, ASG Mr. Krishan Mahajan, Mr. Rakesh Garg, Mr. V.K.Verma, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv.Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Ms. Jahanvi Warah, Mr. Surya Kant, Advocates.
For Delhi Police :- Mr. SWA Qadri, Mr. R.C. Kathia, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For Delhi Govt.:- Mr. Ashok Bhan, Mr. SWA Qadri, Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
Scheme framed by MCD for grant of Tehbazari, squatting or vending Rights - Supreme Court directed MCD and NDMC to reframe the scheme in the light of following observations:
The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-transferability of tehbazari/vending sites, prohibition of cooking, income criteria for applicants, and preference for certain groups.
Headnote:
Tehbazari - Municipal Corporation of Delhi - National Policy on Urban Street Vendors-2004, Gainda Ram v. MCD, Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - Summary: The court discussed the proposed scheme for Grant of Tehbazari/Squatting/Vending Rights, outlining the constitution of Ward Vending Committees, Zonal Vending Committees, and the allocation of vending sites. The court emphasized non-transferability of tehbazari/vending sites, prohibition of cooking, income criteria for applicants, and preference for certain groups. The court directed the Municipal Corporation to reframe the scheme in line with its observations.
Fact of the Case:
The court discussed the proposed scheme for Grant of Tehbazari/Squatting/Vending Rights, emphasizing non-transferability of tehbazari/vending sites, prohibition of cooking, income criteria for applicants, and preference for certain groups.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Municipal Corporation to reframe the scheme in line with its observations.
Issues: Proposed scheme for Grant of Tehbazari/Squatting/Vending Rights
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized non-transferability of tehbazari/vending sites, prohibition of cooking, income criteria for applicants, and preference for certain groups.
Final Decision: The court directed the Municipal Corporation to reframe the scheme in line with its observations.
ORDER :
1. We have before us an affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in pursuance of our order dated 3rd March, 2006. In the said affidavit the proposed scheme for Grant of Tehbazari/Squatting/ Vending Rights has been outlined. It appears therefrom that in accordance with the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors-2004, Ward Vending Committees have been constituted in all the 134 Wards of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi charged with the duty of identifying the sites declaring hawking and non- hawing zones in consultation with various stakeholders like Vendros/Traders' Associations, Resident Welfare Associations, Traffic Police etc. in accordance with the relevant Rules. Zonal Vending Committees have also been constituted in all the 12 Zones and the sites identified by the Ward Committees. It is stated that total vending sites shall not exceed 2.5% of the total population of that particular Ward/Zone based on Census 2001 and this is consistent with the policy framed for the purpose. On a rough estimate about 3 lakh hawkers/ squatters may be accommodated including existing tehbazari/vending sites.
2. In sub para (d) of Para (D), it is provided that tehbazari/vending sites will remain the property of the Corporation. However, mutation in case of death or permanent insanity of the allottee shall be allowed. Transfer/mutation in the event of change of hands or exchange shall be permissible subject to payment of the charges as approved by the Municipal Corporation from time to time.
3. We would like to clarify that the Scheme must contain a clause which makes tehbazari/vending sites non-transferable, except in the case of death or permanent insanity of an allottee, in which case, the legal heirs may be substituted in his place in accordance with the norms. This will be subject to the condition that the legal heir(s) who is allotted the site in the place of the deceased/insane allottee shall carry on tehbazari/vending activity himself and shall not permit anyone else to carry on the business on his behalf.
4. In sub para (e) of paragraph (D), it is provided that the tehbazari/vending site shall measure 6' x 4' and open to sky. The Municipal Corporation proposes to allow the tehbazari/vending sites to be covered wherever possible, for which a standard design will be evolved by the Corporation. The expense on this account shall be borne by the allottee. This has been proposed with a view to prevent illegal extension of tehbazari sites and also with a view to maintain uniformity.
5. We would like to add, that while doing so, no permanent structure shall be raised. The tehbazari/vending sites may be covered in such a manner as to identify and demarcate the area available for tehbazari and with a view to afford protection against the elements to the allottee(s) and their goods lying within the allotted site.
6. We also suggest that necessary provision be made in the Scheme for taking strict action against any allottee found to change or alter the structure raised by the Corporation. If at any time, it is found that any change or alteration in the structure has been made by the allottee, his license may be cancelled.
7. In sub-para (f) of paragraph (D), it is provided that the Vendor will pay a registration fee of Rs. 1,000/- for the vending site in addition to monthly tehbazari charges as approved by the Municipal Corporation in consultation with the Zonal Vending Committee of a particular Zone, or Ward Vending Committee in case of a particular Ward.
8. We clarify that the amount payable by way of registration fee may be altered if considered necessary. The same will apply to the monthly tehbazari charges.
9. In sub para (h) of paragraph (D), it is provided that preference will be given to those persons whose disputes are pending in Courts and who are covered under the scheme formulated in the case of Gainda Ram v. MCD or the Chopra Committee, as also those, whose applications were rejected by the Chopra Committe
