THE PATRI ASSOCIATION AND ANR. vs SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.

2024-07-01 Information

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 01.07.2024
+ W.P.(C) 8656/2017
THE PATRI ASSOCIATION AND ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through Counsel (Appearance not given)

Versus

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
….. Respondent
Through Mr. Pushkar Sood, Ms. Shikha Sood and Mr. Satya Prakash Singh, Advs. for R2/DMRC.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Standing Counsel for MCD.
Mr. Vijay Joshi and Mr Kuldeep Singh, Advs for R3/L&DO.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is an association of street venders who claim to have been carrying on their street vending activities at Mohan Singh Market/INA, New Delhi since 1979. The petitioner association claims that its members were displaced from the aforesaid site where they were carrying on their vending activities (INA/Mohan Singh Market) as the said site was required by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for construction of the infrastructure of the Delhi Metro.

2. According to the DMRC, only 22 (twenty-two) members of the petitioner association were displaced.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 21.12.2021, whereby this Court had rejected the contention that all 47 (forty-seven) members of the petitioner association should be relocated. The court had observed that 22 (twenty-two) identified hawkers and vendors were relocated on account of the work undertaken by the DMRC and had called upon the NDMC to respond to the proposal of SDMC for their relocation.
4. The aforesaid order dated 21.12.2021 reads as under:
The South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) has filed an affidavit. A copy of the same has also been shared by New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). Ms. Niyati Patwardhan who appears for Mr. Sriharsha Peechara states that NDMC would like to respond to the same, since the NDMC is a land owning agency, in respect of the site where 22 temporarily shifted hawkers and vendors are proposed to be relocated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the relocation should relate to all the 47 members of the petitioner Association. However, we do not find any merit in the submission, since only 22 identified hawkers and vendors were relocated on account of the work undertaken by the DMRC. The NDMC should respond to the proposal contained in the affidavit of the SDMC and while doing so, the concerns of all persons affected by the proposed relocation should be examined.

We have made it clear that even if the relocation takes place, the same would not confer any vested rights for permanency to those who are proposed to be relocated to the NDMC site as per the plan attached alongwith the affidavit. Let the response of NDMC be brought on record before the next date of hearing.

List on 16.02.2022.

5. Thereafter, the respondents undertook the exercise for conducting the survey for the purposes of relocation of the identified 22 (twenty-two) members of the petitioner association who were admittedly displaced on account of the DMRC developing infrastructure at or at the vicinity of the given site.
6. On 08.08.2023, the learned counsel for the respondents had requested for an adjournment to enable them to conduct a joint survey for relocation of the said 22 tehbazari holders at a site adjacent to Kashmir Haat. The petition was adjourned at their request.
7. The status report has been filed which indicates that the joint survey was conducted and the 22 kiosks, which are presently located near Automobile Market can be shifted to a site adjacent to Kashmir Haat. It is stated that after relocating the said kiosks at the proposed site, sufficient space would be available for the movement of pedestrians.
8. In the given circumstances, the learned counsel for the NDMC submits that the said identified 22 (twenty-two) members of the petitioner association be shifted / relocated at the said site.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association submits that the other 25 members of the petitioner association also have a right to be relocated but he would not insist on pressing their case in this petition while reserving their right to do so.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that in view of the order dated 21.12.2021 it is concluded that the other 25 members (other than the identified 22 vendors) of the petitioner association had not been displaced and there is no question of re-locating them.
11. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner association does not wish to press this petition in respect of members other than its 22 members who were admittedly displaced, and is satisfied with the proposal of the NDMC to relocate the said 22 tehbazari holders to the identified site adjacent to Kashmir Haat, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to implement their proposal. The respondents shall in coordination with each other, take appropriate steps for relocating the identified 22 members of the petitioner association to the proposed site adjacent to Kashmir Haat, within a period of four weeks from today.
12. Insofar as the remaining members of the petitioner association are concerned, we do not propose to make any observation since the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press their case. We, however, clarify that this order does not foreclose the rights of any of those members of the petitioner association. However, the orders passed earlier continue to be operative and nothing stated in this order be read as diluting the import of such orders.
13. The 22 vendors who are being relocated, shall vacate their current location and hand over the site to the concerned officials of the L&DO prior to them being relocated, within the said period of four weeks. The respondents shall coordinate with each other for implementing this order.

14. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SACHIN DATTA, J
JULY 01, 2024
dr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) 8656/2017 Page 2 of 2