the respondent Gurnam Kaur moved the High Court under Art.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.1987 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.
B. Saharya for the D.D.A. Jose P. Verghese and O.P. Verma for the Respondent.
A Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment has partly allowed the writ petition holding that the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge which was a judgment inter partes had become final, number having been appealed from and therefore the respondent companyld number be removed from pitching her stall on the pavement outside the main OPD gate of the Irwin Hospital where she was squatting.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The issue involved is as to the precedential value of a direction earlier made by this Court on a petition under Art.
226 of the Constitution in April, l986 for the issuance of an appropriate writ or direction restraining the Municipal Corporation from evicting her without the due process of law.
32 of the Constitution based on companysent of the parties with the reservation that it should number be treated as a precedent.
3189/1989.
x 4 ft.
The decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge number having been appealed from by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has since become final.
The respondent Gurnam Kaur was one of the plaintiffs and she had been in occupation of a site admeasuring 6 ft.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. The main question involved in this appeal from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated March 11, 1987 is whether the High Court was justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in issuing a direction to the appellant Municipal Corporation of Delhi to companystruct a stall or a kiosk on the pavement near the OPD gate of the Irwin Hospital, Delhi within two months from the date of its order or in the alternative, to furnish a plan with requisite sanction to the respondent Gurnam kaur to enable her to companystruct a stall of her own.
875 of 1986 B. Datar and Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant.
on the basis of tehbazari licence intermittently since the year 1960 and had been paying the licence fee therefor.
