AMIT KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by persons who are contending that they are hawking and so selling different articles in different areas in the Nehru Place Commercial Complex. The petitioners in these writ petitions have claimed that they have been hawking in the area over different periods. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8028/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 1987; the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8025/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 1990; the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8027/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 1994; the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 8018/2007, 8020/2007, 8026/2007 have stated that they have been hawking since 1996; the writ petitions in W.P.(C) Nos. 8021/2007, 8022/2007 have stated that they have been hawking since 1999; the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8024/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 2000; the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8023/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 2002; while the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7444/2007 has stated that he has been hawking since 2001. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners who have claimed that they have a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India to do their business in this area and that the DDA is adopting a pick and choose policy and is illegally preventing the petitioners from carrying on their legitimate business. The petitioners have submitted that they are all registered with the Pavanputra Rehdi Patri Khomcha Sangh as well as the Manushi Sangathan which are non -governmental organisations looking after the welfare of the tehbazari holders, hawkers and street vendors. The representations of the petitioners through these organisations have received no response at all and that, despite the pressure from the respondents, they continue to do their business at various spots in the Nehru Place area. The petitioners place reliance on photographs to manifest their contention that they are actually continuing with the hawking business. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of the Division Bench dated 3rd July, 2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10479/2006 Citizens for Justice v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT) of Delhi & Ors. in support of their contention that they have a legal right to continue to carry on their business of hawking their wares in the area in question.

(2.) SO far as the authority or permission from the statutory authorities is concerned some of the petitioners have placed reliance on certain receipts of payments made to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on different occasions whereby they were permitted to hawk their wares at different times.

(3.) THE petitioners have also placed reliance on a judgment passed by this court in Cont. Cas.(C) No. 1292/2005 Pavanputra Rehdi Patri Khomcha Sangh v. Shri A.K. Nigam & Anr. passed by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. to contend that the petitioners have been conferred statutory recognition inasmuch as this court has directed issuance of registration certificates to them under the Employees Provident Fund Act arising out the order dated 6th April, 2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16060/2004. Some of the petitioners produced the identity cards issued to them by the Provident Fund Organisation pursuant to the directions of this court in these proceedings.