W.P.(C)/3773/2017 of OMPAL & ORS Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) No. 3773/2017 i& CM No.16592/20.17

DateofJudgment:05^^May, 2017

OMPAL & ORS.

Petitioners.Through;Mr.KamleshKumarMishra,AdvocatewithMr.VishalKalra,Advocate.

versus

NORTHDELHIMUMCIi^Cp]^OIjb\TIC

gDRSRespondents•^W Jig&ilh S^gar, Advocatefor R-1|^0^-3/EDMCl,c/\•-^wsMJfe^^Saniov-•^•••Ghosi>Ghos|,ASCwithChhattarSinghlPSGTB

ICORAM&HON'BLI^MR.HON'BLEqE VINOD GP

G.S.SISTANLJ.

1.Threepetitionershave filedthe'presentwrit petitionunderArticle226of the Constitutionof Indiaseekinga writ of Mandamusdirectingtherespondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the sites at whichthey are vending at present i.e. Footpath, GTB Hospital. The detailsof the sites where thewereis detailedas petitioners initiallyvendingunder: -of the Constitutionof Indiaseekinga writ of Mandamusdirectingtherespondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the sites at whichthey are vending at present i.e. Footpath, GTB Hospital. The detailsof the sites where thewereis detailedas petitioners initiallyvendingunder: -

It is the case of the petitioners that subsequently all the threepetitioners have been vending at the footpath of GTB Hospital.Fearingthreatof dispossessionat the hands of the respondentshas ledthem to knockthe doors_^^this::eoaEfc.^^justice.Learnedcounselfortheadvanceon respondentsapg|^ancfeonancopy^ipj^'Tie tObJ^e'Hnstructionsin theMr.Sagar^tleamedcounset||^^^^spondentsNov2 ^d 3, submitsthat the ^ars of^ the petitioii^gafilmfbunded• • •and misplacedf -for thereason thattheresponil|ys|»23havfeaddressed. 'A .//communications21(013^20,Mfand^O1.12.20is respectivelyclearlyinfofiq9^1>^§|[6^#^^^LUc6ne,eme'd'policeofficialsnotto take action agaihst:thecpetitrpners'dt^^^business near GTBHospital,Gate No.7 diitei4ide^ffl=cfejSLtion^ofVending/Hawzoneby the Town Vending Committee.Learned counsel submits that the respondents No.2 & 3 would standby this decision.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.As notedhereinabove fearing dispossession at the hands of the respondentsNo.2 and 3 has led to the filing of the present writ petition. In thealmost identical communicationsaddressed to the SHO/PoliceStationGTB Enclavedated 22.05.2015and 01.12.2015,the MCD has

requested the Police Station not to take action against the petitioners inseparate letters, copies of which have been placed on record.Theoperative part of the letter in the case of petitioner No.l Om Pal readsas under:-

"You are therefore requested to direct all the concern PoliceOfficialsnot to take actionagainstSh. Ompal S/o Sh. Raghuraj,operating his business at near GTB Hospital Gate No.-7, outerside till creation of Vending/Hawking, zone by the TownVending Committee."

6.Since the respondents no. 2 and 3 have reiterated their stand in Courttoday, the counsel for the pefitfeiTeTsubmifssthatno further orders arerequired to be,^'assed.^xceptthat^^^^ respondents^o. 2 and 3 shouldremain bound bMhe•u sta^^^tafceIfby^t|lemin the^safdletters.7.Accordinglydispose0|thi^-~)^it/petitionbinSfn^t|e respondentsno.2and^ to the standthe courttoday|ndthe lettersdated22.l5.2015and01.12]y|i|tl^CMNo.l6592/2dl7Aaw' Cv'.>T'.W.' ^r:}I*"- tVr'.v'''^-\•1^'8.In viewoftl.e aboveorder,'theapplicationis dispose(^Df'•IX"-v.,-.A-

^'X.G. S. SISTANI,J.

VINODGOEL, J.

MAY 05,2017''sk"