AJAY PRATAP SINGH vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR.

$~49 to 51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30.10.2023
+ W.P.(C) 7943/2021 & CM APPL. 24673/2021 & 30157/2023
DHARMENDER ….. Petitioner
+ W.P.(C) 8290/2021 & CM APPL. 25708/2021 & 30210/2023
YASH ….. Petitioner
+ W.P.(C) 8504/2021 & CM APPL. 26357/2021 & 30404/2023
AJAY PRATAP SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: None.

versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Rishikesh Kumar, ASC (GNCTD) with Ms.Sheenu Priya, Mr.Sudhir Kumar Shukla, Mr.Sudhir & Mr.Sumit Choudhary, Advs. 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, Advs. for NDMC in W.P.(C) 8290/2021 & 8504/2021.
Mr.Rachita Garg & Ms.Nishtha Sinha, Advs. for Respondent No.2/GNCTD/SHO.
Mr.Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel with Mr.Mayank Kamra, Adv. for GNCTD.
Mr.Tushar Sannu & Mr.Naveen Bhati, Advs. for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

J U D G M E N T (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.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE

(SHALINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 30, 2023/ab

W.P.(C) 7943/2021 & connected petitions Page 1 of 3