Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AKHILESH KUMAR & ORS - Appellant
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1415/2016
Decided on : 19-02-2016
For the Appellant : Ms. Rani Chhabra, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Grover & Mr. Harsh Pichara, Advs. for NDMC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that unlicensed street vendors are not entitled to protection under the Street Vendors Act, and their continuance as street vendors can be deemed illegal if it poses security hazards and obstructs pedestrian and vehicular movement.
Headnote:
Street Vendors Act - Street Vending - Section 3(3) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act, emphasizing the requirement for the Town Vending Committee (TVC) to conduct a survey of existing street vendors and accommodate them in vending zones. The court highlighted that unregulated street vending is an obstruction to movement on streets and that the rights of street vendors must be balanced with the rights of the society in general for security. The court also referred to the case of Dharam Chand Vs. Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council (2015) 10 SCC 612, which emphasized the need to balance the rights of street vendors with the security and safety of the society.
Fact of the Case:
The 160 petitioners, claiming to be street vendors, filed a petition to restrain the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) from acting in contravention of the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, after being removed from their vending sites without due process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the protection afforded by Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act is only applicable to those who were licensed under the earlier regime. It also noted that the continuance of the petitioners as street vendors posed security hazards and impeded the movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the removal of unlicensed street vendors, the balance between the rights of street vendors and the security and safety of the society, and the jurisdiction of the court to issue restraint orders without proper inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unlicensed street vendors are not entitled to protection under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act and that their continuance as street vendors can be deemed illegal if it poses security hazards and obstructs pedestrian and vehicular movement. The court emphasized the need to balance the rights of street vendors with the security and safety of the society.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no costs, and the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Town Vending Committee (TVC) in accordance with the law.
CMs No.6192-93/2016 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 1415/2016 & CM No.6191/2016 (for stay)
3. The 160 petitioners claiming to be street vending around the entrances of underground market ‘Palika Bazaar’ and on the pavements abutting Regal and Rivoli Cinema Halls, at Connaught Place, New Delhi have filed this petition to restrain the respondents no.1 to 4 New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) from acting in contravention of the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
4. The counsel for the petitioners states that in an action taken by the respondents NDMC on 12th February, 2016, all the petitioners have been removed from the sites from where they had been earlier street vending, without following the due process of law and without even any notice and in a swift action.
5. This Court in Brahm Pal Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council MANU/DE/1942/2015 and in Rajnesh Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation MANU/DE/2656/2015 and in a large number of similar petitions coming before this Court has taken a consistent stand that no protection, as is sought in this petition, can be granted except to those street vendors who were licenced under the regime prevalent prior to the coming into force of the Street Vendors Act.
6. The counsel for the petitioners fairly admits that none of the 160 petitioners were licensed at any time though it is stated that they have been squatting and street vending on the pavements aforesaid for the last several years and have been earning their livelihood therefrom. In support thereof attention is drawn to a list purported to have been prepared by the Enforcement Department of the respondents NDMC and in which list, it is stated, the names of all the 160 petitioners appears.
7. The counsel for the respondents NDMC appearing on advance notice has controverted and disputed the said list. It is also pointed out that as per the said list also, the checking was in pursuance to the inspections in the month of March and September, 2015 and it is contended that the petitioners for this reason also cannot claim any right to be protected under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act.
8. The counsel for the petitioners besides the passionate pleas contends that once the law i.e. Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act has prohibited eviction of street vendors till the survey to be conducted by the Town Vending Committee (TVC) to be constituted under the said Act has been conducted, the action of the respondents NDMC of removal of the petitioners from the sites where each of them was street vending, has but to be held to be illegal and the petitioners ought to be permitted to come back and street vend from the sites where they earlier had been vending.
9. A perusal of the photographs filed along with the petition shows that the petitioners had literally occupied the entire pavements outside Palika Bazaar and abutting the Regal and Rivoli Cinema Halls at Connaught Place, New Delhi and compelling the pedestrians who also have a right to use the pavements and pathways to spill on to the road at their peril from the fast moving traffic thereon.
10. The counsel for the respondents NDMC also states that such large number of street vendors at the entry and exit point of the underground Palika Bazaar market and outside the cinema halls aforesaid frequented by large number of persons was also found to be posing a security hazard, putting the life of the persons visiting the Palika Bazaar and the aforesaid Cinema Halls in jeopardy.
11. It cannot also be lost sight of that the roads on which the pedestrians are compelled to spill owing to the street vendors blocking the pavements are the arterial roads for the busy New Delhi Railway Station and the squatting by the petitioners also results in impeding the movement of traffic for the New Delhi Railway Station.
12. I have in this respect, in Brahm Pal supra and
