SODAN SINGH Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these cases claim the right to engage in trading business on the pavements of roads of the city of Delhi. They have asserted that they have been pursuing their trade with the permission of the municipal authorities for some time, but recently there has been illegal interference by them. Some of the petitioners have moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and others impugn adverse judgments of the Delhi High Court dismissing their claim.

(2.) As the petitioners have challenged the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Pyarelal v. N. D. M. C. (1967) 3 SCR page 747 : (AIR 1968 SC 133), these cases were placed for hearing before a larger Bench.

(3.) The petitioners, in their applications before this Court, have alleged that they were allowed by the respondents to transact their business by occupying a particular area on the pavements, on payment of certain charges described as Tehbazari. It is contended that the municipal authorities by their refusal to permit the petitioners to continue with their trade are violating their fundamental right guaranteed under Arts. 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. They have also complained of mala fides, arbitrariness and discriminatory conduct attracting Art. 14 of the Constitution.