DHARAM CHAND Vs. CHAIRMAN, NDMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal impugns the judgment dated 22nd September, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant's challenge is to the NDMC's order dated 03.12.2013. The said order had relocated the appellant from his existing vending site outside the Supreme Court of India to a site near the gate of Baroda House, adjacent to the existing stalls, due to security reasons. The learned Single Judge was of the view that under Section 388(D)(5) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994, the NDMC was empowered to impose terms and conditions while granting Tehbazari rights and the letter dated 20th May, 1999 by which Tehbazari/kiosk rights had been granted to the appellant contained terms and conditions which read inter alia, that:

(2.) THE learned Single Judge was of the view that the order of relocation was issued due to security reasons, which was in public interest and the aforesaid terms could never be said to be illegal or unconstitutional. The learned Judge was also of the view that matters of security must be left to the wisdom and decision of the police. The Court was conscious that the decision to remove vendors from the vicinity of the Supreme Court of India was taken in view of the bomb blast right on the perimeter of the Delhi High Court complex. It was noted that the said decision to remove all squatters, vendors and kiosk owners was taken in a meeting attended by security experts.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge was constrained to observe "that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the terms and conditions on which tehbazari permission had been granted by respondent -NDMC. It is unbelievable that petitioner did not have a copy of the same as security deposit and tehbazari monthly charges had been paid by the petitioner only in accordance with the said letter". The Court found that the appellant's right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution had not been violated since he was allotted an alternative site, not far away from the existing site.