Sarojini Nagar Market Shopkeepers Assn. vs NDMC

I.A. No. 170 1. The shopkeepers in Sarojini Nagar area have made a grievance that some of the occupants of tehbazari near their respective shops have created a problem of congestion and disturbance to the pedestrians and, therefore, this grievance may be examined by us in connection with recommendations of the Chaturvedi Committee for allotment of sites to these tehbazari holders. In response to this I.A. Mr. Chaturvedi has filed his detailed report contained in Letter No. 25.

2. We have gone through the letter alongwith the charts prepared therein especially the averments in paragraph 8 of the letter at page 37. We have also gone through the charts produced at pages 34 and 41.

3. In our view, the squatters who are occupying the sites leave sufficient space from the pavement for the pedestrians and even for the customers of the applicant-shopkeepers to approach the market and even to approach the shops concerned.

4. It is made clear that whatever exact area for squatting is allotted by the Chaturvedi Committee to the concerned squatters only will have to be occupied by them and they would not be entitled to cover any additional space. If any additional space is covered whatever legal rights may be available to the applicant-shopkeepers would naturally get enforced by them in accordance with law.

5. This LA. is accordingly dismissed and Letter No. 25 is accepted by us.

I.A. Nos. 172, 173 and 174 6. All these applicants, as the response of Mr. Chaturvedi at Letter Nos. 18(1), 18(2)and 18(3) respectively shows, were not before the Thareja Committee. Question of hardship quota does not survive for them. They all claim to be hawkers with licences. Therefore, they are obviously out of the scheme. In view of these observations of ours learned Counsel for the applicants in these I.As seeks leave to withdraw these applications reserving liberty to move appropriate court for ventilating their grievances. The I.As are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

I.A. No. 175 7. In view of earlier order of this Court dated 24th March 1998 this second I.A. for the similar relief does not survive and the same is dismissed.

I.A. Nos. 176, 177 & 178 8. In these I.As the concerned applicants who had gone to Thareja Committee and prayed for recommendation of their cases as hardship cases got their claims rejected by Thareja committee years back and the cases of only 16 other applicants were listed for consideration by way of hardship relief which were considered. Consequently, at this belated stage their grievance cannot be considered.

9. One grievance is made that one Madan Mohan Gupta who was applicant in I.A. No. 152 got his claim considered in the quota of hardship cases even though his claim was rejected by Thareja Committee. Learned counsel, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, who appeared in that case is co-incidentally present before us. She made it clear that Madan Mohan Gupta's claim was rejected on merits, but he was one of the 16 persons whose cases were recommended by the Thareja Committee for consideration on hardship basis and that is why an order was passed in his favour by us for further consideration. Consequently the example given by Mr. Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants in these I.As, of the order passed in that case cannot be of any avail to these applicants. The Chaturvedi Committee has given response to these I.As by Letter Nos. 19(2), 19(3) and 19(4) respectively. Having considered his response we find that these applicants have no case for our consideration. The I.As are, therefore, dismissed.

I.A. No. 179 10. Having heard learned Counsel in support of this LA. and having considered the response thereto of Mr. Chaturvedi by way of Letter No. 20(1) it appears that though the Thareja Committee might have finally cleared the applicant's case for allotment of a tehbazari site of the size 6' x 4' at the stage of application before Chaturvedi Committee for allotment of site 6' x 4 size appears to have been scored off from the application form and instead 4' x 3' was mentioned. Learned counsel for the applicant made a grievance that it was not done by the applicant but by an unauthorised person. Without going into this question, the fact remains that when the question of payment of arrears came up, the applicant for reasons best known to him paid an amount of Rs. 12,240/- for covering the arrears from 01st January 1990 to 31st January 1998 within the cut-off date prescribed by this Court. The payment was made for 4' x 3' size. Therefore, it cannot be said that now he is entitled to pay anything more to get a larger allotment. Consequently, this LA. is dismissed on this ground.

I.A. No. 180 11. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant this LA. is permitted to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as withdrawn.

I.A. No. 181 12. Learned counsel Mr. Kashyap states that Chaturvedi Committee has recommended allotment of site of the size 4' x 3' to the applicant who was at the relevant time carrying on non-permissible trade of selling 'aaloo tikki', a food stuff. By our earlier order dated 11th December 1998 we had given last opportunity, subject to the cut-off date, to apply to the N.D.M.C. for change of trade. Accordingly, the applicant applied and he was permitted to change his trade to a permissible trade of selling readymade garments which he is selling at the site. The grievance made is that as it is a garment business the size of the site should be 6' x 4' and not 4' x 3'. This claim cannot be considered now for the simple reason that all those who were permitted to change their trade who may have been recommended and who are allotted site of the size 4' x 3' have been granted such sites. Those who were earlier carrying on authorised trade like 'paan bidi' or cobbler's business were also permitted to change their trade but were to carry on their business at the same spot of size of 4' x 3'. Therefore, we cannot treat those who were carrying on unauthorised trade and who were subsequently permitted to switch over to authorised trade, on a better footing, because if they would not have been allowed to change their business they would have been thrown out. Consequently, this LA. is dismissed.

I.A. Nos. 182, 183 & Letter No. 17 13. To be placed on 27th August 1999 at 2.00 p.m. before this Bench.

I.A. No. 184 14. This I.A. is dismissed.

I.A. No. 185 15. To be placed on 27th August 1999 at 2.00p.m. before this Bench for further orders.