( 1 )

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

( 3 ) THE matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage at the request of learned counsel for the parties.

( 4 ) THE present appeals are preferred against the Orders made by learned Single Judge in WP (C) Nos. 17804-08/2004 and WP (C) Nos. 17791-803/2004 on 19. 11. 2004.

( 5 ) THE dispute has had a chequered history. Thus, it is necessary to set out the facts in that behalf.

( 6 ) THE claim of the squatters / hawkers carrying on business activity in the area within the administrative control of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi came to be considered in Saudan Singh v. N. D. M. C. and Ors. , (1992) 2 SCC 458. The petitioners in the said petition were persons claiming a right to trade on the pavement situated within the areas under the control of MCD and NDMC in different parts of the city of Delhi. This judgment was a sequator to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 SCC 155, which came to the conclusion that the right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India on street pavements, if properly regulated, cannot be denied on the ground that the street pavements are meant exclusively for pedestrians and cannot be put to any other use. However, proper regulation was required as a necessary condition or otherwise the very object of laying roads would be defeated. Schemes were required to be prepared to examine the claim of the squatters and to identify street pavements in different areas where street hawking could be regulated without being hindrance to other users. The criteria of priority for allotment was determined as under: (1) persons who have been found squatting between 1970 and 1982 and whose names are contained in the survey report prepared after the survey conducted in 1982 will receive first priority for grant of tehbazari permission subject to the scrutiny of their claims; (2) insofar as casual tehbazari on weekly holidays, festivals/melas, etc. is concerned, as well as at the 67 weekly bazars held, persons availing of the said benefit will continue to be granted the casual or weekly tehbazari; (3) squatters who have started squatting/ hawking in 1983 onwards and who are found on the date of survey would also be considered for grant of open tehbazari of 6 x 4 subject to the production of proof of continuous squatting and proof of residence and nationality. Such squatters/hawkers would be granted open tehbazari subject to availability of space provided they have cleared the dues of the MCD; and (4) persons who do not fall within the aforesaid three categories would be permitted to apply for hawking licences under Section 420 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and their applications would be considered on merit for permission to hawk - not squat - by moving in specified areas with their goods on their heads or on cycles. They will be entitled to hawk with their goods anywhere in the zone in respect of which they have been granted a licence. However, such permission will be subject to any restrictions that may be imposed by the residential associations of different colonies.

( 7 ) THE Committee appointed under the MCD Scheme was asked to scrutinize the claims of the squatters and hawkers from the viewpoint of the eligibility criteria laid under the Scheme so that their priorities could be determined.

( 8 ) MCD issued public notices in newspapers and through bills, posters, etc. between June and August, 1992.

( 9 ) THE aforesaid gave rise to another round of litigation / direction and the relevant judgment is in the case of Gainda Ram and Ors. v. M. C. D. , Town Hall and Ors. , (1993) 3 SCC 178. In terms of the said judgment, those of the hawkers / squatters who had filed petitions / appeals in the Supreme Court and the High Court or suits in the Trial Court prior to the date of the Suprem