O R D E R

% 19.09.2024

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks for directions for closure of alleged unauthorised weekly Tuesday market organised at the street connecting the two roads from Mehrauli - Badarpur Road, situated between F-1 and F-2 Blocks of Sangam Vihar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is being organised without due sanction from the MCD and in connivance/collusion of the local market mafia, MCD, Police Officials etc.

3. The Court takes note of the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8375/2019 titled as Mr. Mekhtiyar Singh v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr., wherein, while considering an almost similar controversy, the Court observed that unless a conventional practice is clearly found to be against fundamental rights or in violation of statutory provisions, any interference by the Writ Court, without taking into consideration the stand of all the relevant stakeholders, may not be warranted.

4. Paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the aforesaid order read as under:- "4. In the instant case, the market which is stated to be organized on Saturday and Monday is consistently being held for last several years, as stated by the respondent-Corporation. The conventional practice being in uninterrupted operation for several years should not be readily interfered with in writ jurisdiction, unless the same is clearly found to be against fundamental rights or in violation of statutory provisions. Any interference, if at all is required to be made, the same has to be done only when all the stakeholders are party to the dispute.

5. It is thus seen that under the facts of the present case, large number of people are likely to be adversely affected by any order, which may be passed by the Court. Hence, at the instance of the petitioner, who has not been able to establish a case of issuance of such order, no writ can be issued. The Court, therefore, refrains from entertaining this petition and instead grants liberty to the petitioner to take up the issue with the official respondent(s)."

5. Having perused the nature of the grievance raised in the instant writ petition, the Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner has any grievance which allegedly leads to any public nuisance, the appropriate recourse is to agitate the same before the concerned Executive Magistrate, as envisaged in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter “Sanhita”]. Provisions enshrined in Chapter XI (B) and (C) of the Sanhita envisage that Sections 152 to 163 provide a mechanism as to how such a grievance can be redressed by the District Magistrate or by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate especially empowered in this behalf by the State Government.

6. In W.P.(C.) 11400/2024, vide order dated 20.08.2024, titled as Sh.

Nilabh Sharma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, wherein, the issue revolved around the public nuisance caused due to placement of dustbins near the petitioner’s house, dismissed the petition while reserving the right in favour of the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 152 of Sanhita. The relevant observations in the said case read as under:-

“9. In another case titled as Gobind Singh v. Shanti Sarup, which involved the magistrate directing the owner of the bakery to demolish his oven and chimney as it caused inconvenience to the public at large, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“7. It is true that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not agree with the findings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but considering the evidence in the case, the reasons given by the Magistrate in support of his order and the fact that the High Court was unable to accept the recommendation made by the Additional Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion that in a matter of this nature where what is involved is not merely the right of a private individual but the health, safety and convenience of the public at large, the safer course would be to ac