Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition was filed by the Mahila Hawkers Welfare Association through its President, seeking issuance of appropriate directions

to the Respondents to allow the vendors of the Petitioner Association to vend peacefully near the Anand Vihar Bus Stand.

3. The petition consists of an annexed list of members marked as ‘Annexure P-1’, which includes names of 114 vendors from the National Hawkers Federation.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that they have been squatting near the Anand Vihar Bus Stand for several years and that they ought not to be disturbed from their respective vending spots.

5. In the present case, notice was issued by the Court on 10th June, 2016, and it was directed that the Respondent No.3– MCD, would not take any coercive measures against the members of the Petitioner association, as listed in ‘Annexure P-1’. Thus, protection was granted to the 114 hawkers who formed the part of the list annexed as ‘Annexure P-1’.

6. Further, it was clarified in the said order itself that the interim protection being granted shall only be available to street vendors and not to vendors who were hawking on the foot over bridge. The said interim order dated 10th June, 2016 is relevant and is set out below:

“The petitioner has filed this petition claiming benefit of Section 3 of the Street Venders (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. It is contended that the members of the petitioner/Association shown in Annexure P-I are street vendors/hawkers and have been vending at the respective spots for several years. It is contended that the respondents are threatening to evict the petitioner without complying with the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 20.08.2014 in W.P.(C) No.4303/2014 (National Association of Street Vendors of India versus South

Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others), wherein the Division Bench of this Court had noted that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act provide that no street vendors shall be evicted till the survey is completed by the Town Vending Committee. Since there is no Town Vending Committee in place, the survey could not take place. Let counter-affidavit be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder-affidavit, thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. Renotify before the roster bench on 03.08.2016: In the meanwhile, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the members of the petitioner/association listed in Annexure P-I. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that some of the hawkers/vendors are hawking on the foot over bridge. It is clarified that the interim protection shall not be available on the foot over bridge and shall be only available only to the street-vendors. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.”

7. The said direction that the interim protection granted to the street vendors vide order dated 10th June, 2016 would not provide any protection to the hawkers hawking on the footover bridge was reiterated by the Court on 3rd August, 2016 as well.

8. On 31st January, 2017, it was brought to the notice of the ld. Single Judge, who was dealing with this writ petition, that an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 1346/2015 titled Court on its own motion (Air Pollution in Delhi) vs. Union of India & Ors., on 12th January, 2017, wherein it was directed that the roads at the concerned area ought to be repaired by the MCD and kept free from encroachment.

9. However, on 31st January, 2017 itself, it was further submitted on behalf of MCD that due to the previous order passed by the ld. Single Judge

dated 10th June, 2016 in the present petition, they were unable to give effect to the order of the Division Bench dated 12th January, 2017. Accordingly, on 31st January, 2017, the following order was passed in the present petition:

“CM No.3777/2017

This is an application filed on be