JUDGMENT

Hima Kohli, J.

1. This common judgment shall dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioners/vendors as the issues raised in these writ petitions are common. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P.(C) 4743/2011 are taken note of.

2. The focus of the lengthy arguments addressed by both sides revolves around an order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Supreme Court on some miscellaneous applications presented in W.P.(C) 1699/1987 entitled Gainda Ram & Ors. vs. NDMC & Ors., which matter was decided on 08.10.2010 by issuing exhaustive directions. Before proceeding to deal with the respective arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the petitioners/vendors and the respondent/NDMC, it would be appropriate to set out the aforesaid order dated 15.07.2011, which is the bone of contention and is reproduced hereinbelow:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.

Since judgment of this Court has so far not been implemented, inasmuch as appropriate legislation has not been enacted by the competent legislature, we direct the parties to maintain the status quo as it is obtaining today."

3. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC that the aforesaid order issued by the Supreme Court, calling upon the parties to maintain status quo as obtaining on 15.07.2011, can only be interpreted to mean that the extensive directions issued earlier, on 08.10.2010, in the case of Gainda Ram (supra) reported as (2010) 10 SCC 715 shall continue to remain in operation, including the adjudicatory mechanism provided for by the NDMC in the scheme presented by it before the Supreme Court and approved in the said judgment, till the appropriate government enacts a law for regulating urban street hawkers and street vendors. It was stated that simply because the legislature has not enacted a law in this regard on or before 30.06.2011, as directed in the aforesaid judgment, it cannot be contended by the petitioners/vendors that there exists a vacuum and the said vacuum can no longer be filled up by continuing to regulate the vending activities in the NDMC jurisdiction in the manner as set out in the aforesaid judgment.

4. To give a brief background of the dispute, learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC walked this Court through some prominent decisions of the Supreme Court rendered from time to time, which relate to pavement squatters/hawkers, starting from the decision in the case of Sodan Singh vs. NDMC & Ors. reported as (1998) 2 SCC 727, the interim order dated 03.03.2006 passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 1699/1987 entitled Sudhir Madan & Ors. vs. MCD, the final judgment in the case of Sudhir Madan (supra) reported as (2009) 17 SCC 597 and lastly, the judgment dated 08.10.2010 passed in the case of Gainda Ram (supra).

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners/vendors for grant of interim orders restraining the respondent/NDMC from removing them from the sites occupied by them till the enactment of an appropriate legislation, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Gainda Ram (supra). She particularly referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paras 40 and 41 of the judgment in the case of Sodan Singh (supra), which dealt with the immediate eviction of unauthorized squatters/hawkers and laid emphasis on the fact that in the said case, the Supreme Court had directed removal of unauthorized squatters/hawkers without awaiting final allotment of sites to be allotted to eligible claimants at the places recommended by the Thareja Committee or suggested by the NDMC.

6. Again, in the interim order dated 03.03.2006 passed in Sudhir Madan's case (supra), the following observation made by the Supreme Court was highlighted by the counsel for the respondent/NDMC:

"While we undertake this exercise, we direct the Authorities to see to it that those persons, who are carrying on hawking activities or who a