SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.B. Majmudar and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.

IA No. 37 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987 with IAs Nos. 261-62 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987, IAs Nos. 286-87, 268, 247-48, 269, CP (C) No. 322 of 1998 in IAs Nos. 247-48 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987, IA No. 271, CP (C) No. 329 of 1998 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987, SLP (C) No. 12618 of 1992, CP (C) No. 285 of 1998 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987, IA No. 272 in IAs Nos. 255-56 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987, IAs Nos. 273-74 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987. D/d. 28.8.1998.

Footpath Dukandar New Lajpatrai Market Patri Union (Registered) - Petitioner

Versus

MCD and others - Respondents

For the appearing parties in IAs Nos. 261-62, 266-69, 272 and CP (C) No. 322 of 1998 :- M.M. Kashyap and Dhan Singh Nagar, Advocates.

For the Appearing parties in IAs Nos. 271 and 273-74 in CP (C) No. 285 of 1998 ; - Ms. Prasanthi Prasad and Ms Asha G. Nair Advocates.

For the Appearing parties in SLP (C) No. 12618 of 1992 in IA No. 37 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987 : - Anoop Choudhary, Senior Advocate P.H. Parekh, Ms Indoo Verma and Deepa, Advocates.

For the Appearing parties in CP (C) No. 329 of 1998 : - M.P. Shorawal and Prem Sunder Jha, Advocates for Delhi Police.

For the Respondent :- Mr. Shiv Kumar and Indira Sawhney, Advocates.

Municipalities - Pavement for hawkers/Squatters - Allotment of stall/kiosk/tehbazari site by M.C.D. - Implementation of - Scheme evolved by M.C.D. - Ongoing verification of claims by M.C.D. for determination of eligibility of applicants - Held, where verification is complete, right of applicants are whose applications rejected will arise for approaching the Committee - Status quo order granted earlier by Supreme Court and operating qua the squatters concerned directed to be continued and those covered by status quo order not to be disturbed from their present respective places - Further directed that, where the goods have been removed by authorities; the same shall be restored to the applicants - Affected petitioners held entitled to file appropriate proceedings for recovery of damages.

[Para ]

Cases Referred :-

Gainda Ram v. MCD, (1998) 1 SCC 188.

ORDER

IA No. 37 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987

S.B. Majmudar, J. - Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in IA No. 37 may file appropriate IA pertaining to the petitioners concerned who according to him, were covered by an earlier order of this Court as well as the order of this Court dated 1-5-1997, Gainda Ram v. MCD, (1998) 1 SCC 188, pointing out the individual grievance of the petitioners concerned which can be examined properly. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is granted two weeks time for filing such IA.

2. As IA No. 37 of 1994 is being disposed of, all interim orders passed therein will be treated to have been passed in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987. Status report filed in this IA along with the paper-book be tagged on to the main matter.

3. Learned counsel for MCD submits that within one week the details of the scheme approved by the Standing Committee in its meeting dated 19-8-1998 will be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties concerned. Thereafter, two weeks more time is granted to learned counsel for the parties concerned who want to file their response.

4. IA is disposed of. WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987 to be listed on 25-9-1998 at 2.00 p.m.

IAs Nos. 261-62 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987

5. These seven applicants claim to be squatters in Shahdara (South) Zone.

6. According to learned counsel for the respondent MCD verification process in this zone is over and due intimation according to him, is already sent to Petitioner 2, Mohd. Kasim whose claim according to him, is rejected. If verification of this zone is complete, the right of the applicants whose applications are rejected will arise for approaching the Chopra Committee.

7. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, no reasoned order or any order rejecting his claim is received by Petitioner 2. According to learned counsel for the respondent MCD rest of the petitioners have not applied for reverification. Learned counsel for the petitioners will verify in connection with this submission of learned counsel for the respondent.

8. So far as Petitioner 2 is concerned, further details will be made available by learned counsel for the respondent MCD on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent MCD will also cross-check regarding the applicants who have produced copies of the intimation with endorsements and serial numbers said to have been given by the officers of the respondent Corporation. These IAs will therefore stand adjourned to 11-9-1998 at 2.00 p.m.

IAs Nos. 266-67 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners states, on the basis of the documents filed in these IAs that all the 14 applicants had already lodged their claims earlier on 27-7-1992 and again for reverification on 24-7-1997 pursuant to our order dated 1-5-19971. This statement is also made on affidavit in these IAs. Learned counsel for MCD shall cross-check the documents produced along with these IAs and will file counter in connection with each one of the applicants and will also produce relevant contemporaneous records showing the receipt of the applications from the applicants concerned.

10. The records pertaining to the receipt of applications in July 1992 and July 1997 shall be produced on the next date of hearing along with the affidavit. To be listed on 11-9-1998 at 2.00 p.m.

IA No. 268 in IAs Nos. 247-48 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987

11. These six applicants who are clearly covered by our order dated 1-5-19971 cannot be disturbed from their present occupation at Pushpa Market, Opposite J Block, Behind Juneja Handloom, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

12. The stand taken by the respondent MCD in its affidavit-in-reply is totally misconceived as the reliance placed on the order of the Lt. Governor dated 13-11-1996 cannot survive in view of our later order dated 1-5-19971 which protects them and provides that who might have been dispossessed from their respective places pursuant to the Lt. Governors order should be put back in possession.

13. So long as the direction contained in the order dated 1-5-19971 is not modified in appropriate proceedings, the said direction must be obeyed. It is therefore directed that all these six applicants shall not be disturbed from their present respective places as directed earlier. Whatever goods might have been removed by the authorities in the meantime shall be restored to the applicants concerned. It will also be open to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the competent court for recovery of damages if any.

14. So far as Prayer (ii) is concerned, we reiterate that the respondent MCD will complete the verification as per our order dated 1-5-19971 in connection with these applicants. IA stands disposed of accordingly.

CP (C) No. 322 of 1998

15. Contempt petition is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

IA No. 269 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987

16. The prayers made in this IA by Janta Hawkers Welfare Association cannot be granted at this stage. So far as Prayer (a) is concerned, the interim orders passed from time to time will have to be complied with by all concerned.

17. So far as other prayers are concerned, it is not the stage at which any member of the petitioner association can feel aggrieved. As and when the appropriate stage is reached and when their grievance is not considered, the individual member may move for appropriate orders. In view of this observation and clarification, the IA is disposed of.

IA No. 271 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987

18. Two weeks time is granted to the learned counsel for the respondent MCD to file its response to this IA. In the meantime, if the applicants are already protected by our status quo order dated 1-5-19971, the said status quo order shall continue to operate in their favour, meaning thereby they would not be disturbed. To be listed on 11-9-1998 at 2.00 p.m.

Contempt Petition (C) No. 329 of 1998

19. Notice to issue to respondent contemnors returnable on 11-9-1998 at 2.00 p.m. Dasti service in addition permitted. The personal presence of the respondents dispensed with. They may appear through their counsel on the returnable date. Leave to correct the name of Respondent 3. Instead of Mr Ramesh the name will be mentioned as O.P. Chopra. Notice shall go in his name.

SLP (C) No. 12618 of 1992

20. This SLP will be treated to be pending and will be listed along with WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987 on 25-9-1998 at 2.00 p.m.

Contempt Petition (C) No. 285 of 1998

21. Notice to issue in the amended petition. Leave to correct the name of Respondent 7. Dasti service in addition permitted. Personal presence of the respondents dispensed with.

IA No. 272 in IAs Nos. 255-56 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this IA is already disposed of. Hence, no further orders are necessary. Therefore, it stands disposed of.

IAs Nos. 273-74 of 1998

23. Notice to issue returnable on 11-9-1998. If the applicants are covered by the status quo order passed by this Court on 1-5-19971, the said status quo order shall operate in their favour and they shall not be disturbed and they shall continue in their respective places in the meantime.

Court Masters.

.