Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
Rakesh Babu Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council – Respondent
W.P. (C.) 1217, 1449 of 2017
Decided On : 12-09-2017
Street Vendors - Protection of Livelihood - Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, 2014, Section 3(3) - The court discussed the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, particularly Section 3(3) which protects the livelihood of street vendors. The court emphasized that the policy decision of the NDMC to limit the number of street vendors to 628 was not illegal or unreasonable, and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to relief under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be regular street vendors, sought protection under the Street Vendors Act, 2014 after being removed by the NDMC. They argued that their livelihood would be affected if not allowed to vend.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not included in the list of 628 street vendors prepared by the NDMC and did not have licenses to vend. It upheld the NDMC's policy decision to limit the number of street vendors and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement of the petitioners to protection under the Street Vendors Act, 2014 and the reasonableness of the NDMC's policy decision to limit the number of street vendors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to relief under the Act as they were not included in the list of eligible street vendors and the NDMC's policy decision was not illegal or unreasonable.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were granted leave to approach the TVC with supporting documents for consideration in accordance with the law.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
1. Two petitioners claim to be vending at Janpath Lane, Bank of Baroda, near LIC, New Delhi; and Janpath Lane, Bank of Baroda, near Mini Market, New Delhi respectively. The petitioners have filed the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the sake of convenience, the prayer made in W.P.(C).1217/2017 is being reproduced here-in-under:
“(a). admit the writ petition against the respondents;
(b). direct the respondent not to disturb the petitioner from his present vending site i.e. at/near Janpath Lane, Bank of Baroda, near LIC, New Delhi till such time the respondent/NDMC will complete the exercise of proper verification and final allotment of vending site to him as per new Act as petitioner is an existing verified vendor and has already been earlier protected by order of the Court as his name being found in the several list of NDMC and particularly verified by TVC also as existing vendor;
(c). direct the NDMC to recall the order, if any, passed by NDMC in respect of vending site of the petitioner without giving any opportunity to him which is against the very principle of natural justice;
(d). pass any other order/relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. Identical prayer has been made in the other writ petition as well. The petitioners claim that the petitioners are regular street vendors. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been illegally removed by the officials of the NDMC in the month of January, 2017. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to allow them to squat at their respective areas and not to disturb and cause any hindrances on primarily two grounds: (i) that the petitioners are entitled to protection under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, 2014; and (ii) the petitioners have been vending for a long period of time and their livelihood would be affected in case they are not allowed to vend.
3. A reply has been filed by the respondent NDMC. It is submitted by counsel for the respondent-NDMC that the petitioners are neither authorized vendor nor in the list of 628 persons prepared by the NDMC. It is further submitted that the petitioners were removed as they were illegally vending in an already over-crowded place and obstructing free flow of pedestrians’ movement. Moreover, it is contended that having regard to the space available in the NDMC area, the NDMC is following a uniform policy of allowing only those street vendors to vend whose names find mentioned in the list of 628 eligible persons prepared by the NDMC or are licenced vendors or hawkers. Counsel contends that having regard to the area available and complaints of rampant vending, encroachments, obstructions of the public movements, obstruction to the ingress and egress of metro commuters, obstructions to the parking and several buildings in the Connaught Place and Janpath areas, near government buildings, drives are conducted to remove the illegal hawkers and vendors. Mr.Peechara further submits that a clarification was sought by the respondent in LPA.136/2016 titled as Bhola Ram Patel v. NDMC of the order dated 18.05.2016. Counsel further contends that following the clarification dated 27.9.2016, respondent has been carrying out exercises to regain the footpaths and roads and clear the places from illegal encroachers from obstruction to the pedestrians and free flow of public traffic and for security reasons. It is contended that footpaths in the NDMC areas are limited, besides the petitioners are not in the list of 628 persons prepared by the NDMC.
4. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents are following a pick and choose policy. Illegal street vendors are allowed to vend whereas the petitioners are not being allowed to vend.
5. We
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
