SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Shalinder Kaur, JJ.
Dharmender - Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7943 of 2021 & CM Appls. 24673 of 2021 & 30157 of 2023, W.P.(C) 8290 of 2021 & CM Appls. 25708 of 2021 & 30210 of 2023 and W.P.(C) 8504 of 2021 & CM Appls. 26357 of 2021 & 30404 of 2023
Decided On : 30-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
None, for the Petitioners.
Mr.Rishikesh Kumar, ASC (GNCTD) with Ms.Sheenu Priya, Mr.Sudhir Kumar Shukla, Mr.Sudhir & Mr.Sumit Choudhary, Advocates for GNCTD.
SI Ramkesh Meena PS Connaught Place.
Mr.Vivek Narayan Sharma, ASC with Ms.Arpan Wadhawan, Asst. SC for NDMC in W.P.(C) 7943/2021.
Mr.Abhinav Bajaj, ASC with Mr.Ashish Tiwari, Asst. SC with Mr.Saksham Ojha & Ms.Geetashi Chandra, Advocates for NDMC in W.P.(C) 8290/2021 & 8504/2021.
Mr.Rachita Garg & Ms.Nishtha Sinha, Advocates for Respondent No.2/GNCTD/SHO.
Mr.Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel with Mr.Mayank Kamra, Advocate for GNCTD.
Mr.Tushar Sannu & Mr.Naveen Bhati, Advocates for GNCTD.

IMPORTANT POINT
The designation of specific areas as 'No Vending Zones' under the Street Vendors Act and the authority of the respondents to issue challans against unauthorized vendors.

Headnote:

Street Vendors Act - Dispute over vending in 'No Vending Zone' - The court dismissed the petitions filed by street vendors seeking protection and certification under the Street Vendors Act, as the area in question was designated as a 'No Vending Zone' and the petitioners were considered unauthorized squatters/vendors by the authorities.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought protection and certification under the Street Vendors Act to carry on their trade in a specific area, which was designated as a 'No Vending Zone'. The authorities had issued challans against the petitioners for unauthorized vending.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petitions as the petitioners did not have authorization to operate in the designated area, and they failed to appear or be represented in court, leading to dismissal in default and for non-prosecution.

Issues: Dispute over vending in a 'No Vending Zone', petitioners seeking protection and certification under the Street Vendors Act, non-appearance of petitioners in court.

Ratio Decidendi: The area in question was designated as a 'No Vending Zone', and the petitioners were considered unauthorized squatters/vendors by the authorities, leading to the dismissal of their petitions.

Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed in default and for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance or representation of the petitioners in court.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The above-captioned petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying as under:

i. Direct the respondents not to dispossess or obstruct or disturb the Petitioner in carrying on his trade from his site at opposite shop No.E-4, E-Block, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi, in terms of section 3(3) of the street vendors {Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending} Act 2014;

ii. to conduct the survey of the petitioner and to issue certificate of vending in favour of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Street Vendors {Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending} Act 2014.

2. Since the subject-matter of all the captioned petitions is similar, therefore, these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1/NDMC submits that since the area in question is a `No Vending Zone' and the petitioners are unauthorized squatters/vendors who would not otherwise be permitted to operate from the concerned area, therefore, various challans have been issued by respondent no.1 against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2/GNCTD /SHO submits that respondent no.2 at present has no role in the present petitions as the petitioners have not been operating from the concerned squatting site.

5. None appears on behalf of the petitioners today. It seems that petitioners are no more interested to pursue the present petitions.

6. Since neither petitioners appears nor represents through counsel physically or virtually, present petitions are dismissed in default and for non-prosecution as well.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top