Delhi High Court
Urmila Devi vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 11 January, 2013
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th January, 2013
+ LPA No.825/2012
URMILA DEVI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raiz Farooqui, Adv.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA.
Mr. H.S. Sachdeva & Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advs. for R-3 with Station House Officer, P.S. Kalkaji.
Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. for MCD.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 17.10.2012 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.6391/2012 preferred by the appellant. The counsel for the respondents appeared on advance notice when the appeal came up first and with the consent of the counsels, the appeal was finally heard and judgment reserved.
2. The appellant, claiming to be a hawker selling her wares from a pavement in the Nehru Place Commercial Complex, had filed the writ LPA No.825/2012 Page 1 of 4 petition from which this appeal arises pleading that her application for a vending site under the National Policy for Urban Street Vendors had been rejected by the Zonal Vending Committee (ZVC) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) due to non availability of vending sites and seeking to restrain the respondents from dispossessing her from the said site till a permanent or alternative vending site under the Policy aforesaid was allotted to her.
3. The respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) opposed the writ petition denying that the appellant was hawking from the pavement in Nehru Place and it was further contended that Nehru Place had been declared as a 'No Hawking Zone' and none was permitted to carryout hawking activities therefrom.
4. The respondent MCD also in its counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge pleaded that the Nehru Place District Centre was no longer within its jurisdiction as the same had been transferred to the DDA in the year 2002. It was also denied that the appellant was a valid tehbazari holder of the MCD.
5. The learned Single Judge in the light of the aforesaid and noticing the orders in other similar writ petitions to the effect that no priority could be LPA No.825/2012 Page 2 of 4 claimed over other similarly placed applicants though reserving the right if any of the appellant to be considered for allotment as per her seniority as and when the sites are made available, dismissed the writ petition.
6. The counsel for the appellant before us has drawn attention to tehbazari receipts and photographs to contend that the appellant is in fact hawking from the Nehru Place area and the contention of the DDA and the MCD to the contrary is incorrect.
7. We are however of the opinion that the said controversy is irrelevant.
It is not disputed that Nehru Place has been declared as a 'No Hawking Zone'. None is permitted to hawk / vend from open areas, streets and pavements thereof. The hawking / vending activities even if any by the appellant or others from the said area, are illegal. The National Policy for Urban Street Vendors does not vest any right in the appellant to carry on hawking / vending activities from 'No Hawking Zones'. The claim of the appellant has already been rejected by the ZVC. Granting of the relief claimed by the appellant would not only amounts to perpetuating contravention of the Municipal / DDA decision declaring Nehru Place as a 'No Hawking Zone' but would also tantamount to granting a hawking / vending site to the appellant when she at present has not been found to be LPA No.825/2012 Page 3 of 4 eligible thereof by the Committee constituted for the said purpose. It defies logic as to why the appellant should be granted the said benefit when those who have been found eligible by the ZVC have yet not been allotted any vending site owing to paucity thereof. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J CHIEF JUSTICE th JANUARY 11 , 2013 'gsr' LPA No.825/2012 Page 4 of 4