Gainda Ram Vs. M.C.D [1994] INSC 162 (4 March 1994)

Ahmadi, A.M. (J) Ahmadi, A.M. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J) Venkatachala N. (J)

CITATION: 1994 SCC (5) 52

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1. The IA Nos. 19, 29 and 30 taken on board.

2. The main grievance of the hawkers/squatters is that the MCD Committee is allocating space on proximity to residence basis which rendered their right to allocation at the place where they were trading redundant. It must be clarified that it may not be possible for MCD to accommodate all the claimants in one single zone if the total available space therein is insufficient. In that case some of the claimants will have to be dislodged. This depends on the identification done by the MCD Committee on the criteria approved earlier as per the Scheme. The grievance that even people who have been trading in a given zone for long number of years are not accommodated on the basis of their seniority i.e. length of presence, and are asked to move out on the residence-proximity criteria is somewhat genuine.

We, therefore, think that the proper course to adopt is to obtain from them their preferences in regard to zones where they would like to be accommodated. Thereafter, on the basis of their seniority as may be established before the Committee they may, as far as possible, be accommodated on the basis of their preference in the respective zones. This does not, however, mean that the total number of slots in the zone would have to be increased on the basis of preference but they would have to be accommodated in the available slots on the basis of their preference having regard to their seniority in that zone. If it is not possible to accommodate all on the basis of their preferences and it becomes imperative to shift them to other zones, the MCD Committee would be free to do so. However, the endeavour should be to try to accommodate them on the basis of their preference as far as possible. Now in order to save time we direct the MCD to once again put up the list in the respective zones and give one copy thereof to Mr P.H. Parekh, as agreed by counsel, so that there is no difficulty about the copies put up at zones not being legible or otherwise. Mr Maheshwari states that he will first give the approved list in regard to the city zones and thereafter the other zones. We would, therefore, direct that as soon as the list is given within two weeks thereafter the persons whose claims have been approved may send their preferences to enable the MCD to accommodate the approved persons to the extent possible in the zones of their choice depending on the length of their presence in their zone. After the 54 preferences are received within two weeks from today, the MCD will complete the exercise and till then the status quo order earlier made will continue. After the exercise is completed, the MCD will be entitled to implement the outcome of their exercise and those who cannot be accommodated in a given zone and are accommodated in another zone will be shifted to the zone in which they are accommodated.

3. The IAs will stand disposed of accordingly.

4. Mr S.P. Pandey states that insofar as his IA is concerned the claim has been disposed of on the ground that it was not received although he has a receipt evidencing the receipt thereof. He may show the same to Mr Maheshwari and satisfy him about the receipt thereof. On such satisfaction, the MCD may examine the claim.

Contempt Petition No. 61 of 1994 in WP (C) No. 700 of 1986

5. The contempt petition will also stand disposed of accordingly.

 Back