MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT,

1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of

public interest litigation, the writ petitioners (hereafter referred to as “Manushi” and “ITD” -short for Initiative Transportation and Development, which has instituted WP(C) No. 8580/2009) seek directions for declaring that the ceiling or limit, fixed by the respondent – Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “MCD”) on the issuance of cycle rickshaw licenses is illegal and void. The petitioners also seek declaration under Rule 3(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Cycle Rickshaw Bye-laws, 1960, (hereafter “the 1960 byelaws”) to the extent it limits the grant of licenses to owner-pliers (of cycle rickshaws) is also unconstitutional and void. Other directions for quashing the policy of MCD enabling impounding, confiscating and destruction of cycle rickshaws, imposition of penalties and the regime of zoning mandated by MCD as well as the Delhi Police another respondent, in these proceedings have been sought. The petitioners urge that the respondents should be directed to ensure that separate lanes are created to facilitate smoother movement of cycle rickshaw and non-motorized vehicles in the city of Delhi.

Petitioners? Submissions

2. The writ petitioners claim to be public interest organizations. Manushi contends to being a welfare organization espousing the interest of various classes of weaker sections of the society including rickshaw pullers. According to the materials relied upon by it, its activities strengthen citizenship rights and civil liberties of the people highlight and focus on gender issues, combat corruption and campaigning for electoral reforms and inter alia undertaking public interest litigation. The other petitioners, the initiative for Transportation and Development likewise contends being an organization specializing in transport solutions; more specifically to having suggested improved versions of cycle rickshaws.

3. The petitioners urge that cycle rickshaw were introduced in 1940 in the city of Delhi as a less exploitative form of transport and an improvement over hand-pulled rickshaws. It is stated that from 1960 onwards the demand for and the number of plying rickshaws grew manifold. The number of cycle rickshaws plying on the roads of Delhi city was 20,000 in 1975, which increased to 4.5 lakhs in 1973 and had grown to 6-7 lakhs in 2006. The petitioners submit that cycle rickshaws are an instant source of employment for about 7 to 8 lakh people and involve low capital investment typically ranging from Rs.1200/-to Rs.4500/-. They are availed of by the least skilled and those with the least employment opportunity i.e. seasonal migrant workers. The petitioners submit that initial cap fixed by the MCD on the number of licenses which could be issued under the 1960 bye-laws was 750 but was increased to 20000 in 1975. This increase was based on reports of a survey conducted for the purpose. On the basis of another review the figure was again increased to 50,000 in 1993 even though at that stage the number of cycle rickshaw plying on the road were 4.5 lakhs. The petitioners assert that the last increase was by virtue of the policy decision of the MCD which took place in 1997 when the total number of licenses that could be issued was capped at 99,000.

4. The petitioners allude to a previous public interest litigation on the file of this Court i.e. WP(C) No. 3419/1999 and connected proceedings i.e. WP(C) Nos. 5340/2003, 1011-15/2006 and 8685/2006 (hereinafter, “Hemraj”) where they say, this Court issued certain directions that have been construed as mandatory and form the basis of the MCD policy, capping the ceiling (on the number of rickshaw licences) at 99000. Copies of the orders of the Court issued by the Division Bench, dated 17.05.2006 and 26.07.2006, based on certain status reports are produced along with the writ petition.

5. The writ petitioners contend that the impugn