The court emphasized the importance of balancing the rights of encroachers with the rights of devotees and upheld the need for compliance with court directions.

Headnote:
Illegal Occupation - Rehabilitation of Petitioners - Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 - Protocol for removal of Jhuggis - Street vendors (Protections of livelihood and regulation of street vending) Act, 2014 - Article 19(1)(g)
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought rehabilitation prior to eviction/demolition of the Dharmshalas. They were residing in illegal occupation and had submitted undertakings to vacate the premises. The court had issued directions for vacation and consideration for reallotment of spaces. The petitioners filed a writ petition one day before the deadline to vacate the premises.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were residing in illegal occupation and had not made substantial attempts to obtain alternate accommodation as directed. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the deadline for vacating the premises would not be extended.
Issues: Illegal occupation, rehabilitation of petitioners, compliance with court directions, extension of deadline for vacation
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to balance the rights of encroachers with the rights of devotees visiting the Mandir premises. It found that the petitioners had been unauthorizedly occupying the premises and running commercial shops/kiosks, and dismissed the petition due to lack of merit.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The petitioners were still free to contact the authorities for alternate accommodation, but the deadline for vacating the premises would not be extended.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. This petition has been taken up on transfer in the typed supplementary list.

3. The present petition has been filed on behalf of three Petitioners namely - Mrs. Sarawati, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Mr. Gyan Singh Sharma, seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Direct Respondent Authorities (including the Ministry of Railways, Government of NCT of Delhi, DUSIB) to rehabilitate the Petitioners prior to eviction/demolition of the Dharmshalas;

b) Direct Respondent Authorities (including the Ministry of Railways, Government of NCT of Delhi, DUSIB) to follow the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and the Protocol (for removal of Jhuggis) in letter and spirit;

c) Pass any other or such further order as be deemed fit in facts and circumstances of the present case."

4. This petition finds its genesis in the order dated 27th September, 2021, passed by this Court in FAO 36/2021 titled Neeta Bhardwaj and ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma and connected matters, in respect of various unauthorised occupants and illegal encroachers in the premises of the Kalkaji Mandir.

5. While hearing the bunch of appeals, petitions and suits related to the Kalkaji Mandir, vide order dated 27th September, 2021, considering the deplorable condition of the Kalkaji Mandir premises, this Court had passed, inter alia, the following directions:

(i) Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha was appointed as the Interim Administrator of the Kalkaji Mandir for the purposes of overall management, upgradation and re-development of the Mandir.

(ii) All the encroachers and illegal occupants were directed to vacate the dharamshalas and other spaces, which were in their and their familys occupation. Most of the unauthorised occupants were not paying tehbazari and in any event, were conducting their businesses in the form of shops/stalls/kiosks in the Mandir premises.

(iii) While giving directions for removal of illegal encroachers and unauthorised occupants, the ld. Administrator was requested to, on a case to case basis, direct alternate accommodation with DUSIB/SDMC, in case of those entitled for rehabilitation in accordance with law.

6. This order was passed on 27th September, 2021, and was well within the knowledge of the Petitioners.

7. The Petitioners herein were residing in the dharamshalas, clearly in illegal occupation. All the three Petitioners had thereafter, appeared before this Court on 9th December, 2021, through their Counsel Mr. Sasi Bhushan and had submitted undertakings to the following effect

"I, - undertake that, I am ready to vacate the above noted Dharmshala premises as directed by this Honble Court subject to providing alternative accommodation by SDMC or DUSIB or JJ slum department, Delhi on rehabilitation scheme. That I have no shelter for myself and my family (consisting of ____) in Delhi or in__. Since last 2 years due COVID19 I have no sources of earning to arrange any rented accommodation in Delhi, presently my condition is miserable and I am also unable to earn the bread and butter for my family. I have been running a small shop of Phool & Prasad shop since last 22 years, due to sudden closer of the said shop, my right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) also badly affected. Hence you honor may allot alternative area/premises on rehabilitation scheme under relevant provisions of Street vendors (Protections of livelihood and regulation of street vending)Act, 2014 or any other Act for the time being in force. I also under take to pay the license fee/allotment charges, if any fixed by this Honble Court or any Authority."

8. While accepting the undertakings, insofar as the shops are concerned, the following directions were issued:

"a) All the shopkeepers are acceptable to vacate the existing spaces in their occupation. Accordingly, without going into the contents of the actual documents signed and placed b