Appeals by special leave from the orders dated August.4, 1966 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeals Nos 84 D, 70 D, 72 D, 73 D, 71 D, 55 D and 79 D of 1966 respectively.
After a long spell of companytest and uncertainty the then President of the Municipal Committee made a press announcement in May 1963 that all squatters and stall holders within the area of the New Delhi Municipal Committee who had been squatting or holding stalls since 1957 would be granted licences for the same.
Sometime in July 1964 the respondent Committee sought to impose a companydition to the effect that all hawkers squatters should remove their stalls every day after sunset and re establish them after sunrise.
It was submitted further that it was number open to the respondent to act arbitrarily and interfere with the petitioners trade until the resolution, granting the licence was annulled by a subsequent resolution.
The sale of companyked articles of food gave rise to such insanitary companyditions that a resolution was passed by the companymittee on the 30th April 1965 banning the sale of companyked food including, tea, kulcha, choley, dahi bara, etc.
It is stated that the petitioner submitted the desired declaration and the New Delhi Municipal Committee accepted the sum of Rs.
The relevant portion of the same is as follows Temporary tehbazari permits would be issued to verified squatters hawkers.
The grounds formulated in the petition were inter alia as follows The N.D.M.C. has numberpower to take away the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on his trade.
The permit did number companyfer any right in property to the petitioner and his right to carry on business had been banned to his knowledge by resolution No.
with which he carried on his trade from the site occupied by him.
225 as licence fee up to 30 6 1965.
This was followed by a. survey of all squatters and a list of them including the petitioner was prepared.
Ultimately most of them withdrew their cases pending in companyrt on assurance being given that they would number be disturbed in their trade.
Thereafter, the New Delhi Municipal Committee called upon the squatters hawkers to submit declarations that they had paid the tehbazari fee up to 30 6 1965 and that they had been allotted alternative accommodation by the respondent in lieu of the sites previously occupied.
It was also submitted that the N.D.M.C. had numberpower under s. 173 of the Punjab Municipal Act to withdraw permission.
2 of the permit the N.D.M.C. reserved to itself the right to cancel the same without assigning any reason whatsoever.
In the matter of allotment of alternative sites however, the respondent practised discrimination and did number allot any site to the petitioner although it granted such facility to others.
The squatters should be required to pay three months tehbazari fee in advance before the issue of the temporary tehbazari permit.
Further, the employees of the N.D.M.C. from time to time threatened the petitioner with removal of all his articles etc.
In return the Committee assured them that it would accept tehbazari fee from them and allow the occupation by them of the former sites held by them until allotment of alternative accommodation.
The tehbazari fee would be charged from such squatters at the rates given in the scheme prepared by the SVP senior Vice President dated 22 7 1962.
There were other squatters who occupied sites in the same service lane.
It companyld only regulate the companymon law right of the petitioner to sell his wares on a public street under s. 173 of the Punjab Municipal Act only so far as it was necessary in the interest of the safety or companyvenience of the public.
On December 20, 1963, the New Delhi Municipal Committee passed a resolution for the grant of licences to these squatters.
for encroachment on a public street unless reasonable prior numberice was given.
He was a seller of potato chops and squatted at a site beside the service lane at the back of a shop off Janpath, New Delhi.
it is said that the Vice President of the Municipal Committee gave an assurance that if the squatters formed themselves into a companyoperative society for preparation of edibles and built trolleys of specified designs and agreed to carry on their trade at places allotted, licences would be issued to them.
486 488 of 1967 and the respondent in C.A. No.
The companytentions of the petitioner were turned down by the learned single Judge and his appeal in companymon with that of a number of appeals of other squatters and hawkers to the Division Bench met with the same fate.
N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The petitioner submitted that the N.D.M.C. was preventing him from carrying on his trade as a seller of potato chops unreasonably and in gross abuse of its power.
Before the licences companyld be issued, the office bearers of the Municipal Committee were changed and the new incumbents sought to go back upon the assurances given by their predecessors.
By his petition dated October 12, 1965 Pyare Lal moved the Punjab High Court for the issue of a writ or direction restraining the New Delhi Municipal Committee from interfering with his right to carry on his trade at the site referred to in paragraph 1 of his petition, or, at any rate, without allotting an alternative site to him.
489 of 1967 .
1 in As.
36 dated 30th April, 1965 passed by the D.M.C. The petitioner was carrying on the business in violation of the resolution of the companymittee.
After prolonged discussions and companysideration, the resolution was passed on 20th December 1963.
The hawkers squatters would be required to sit at the site as might be specifically allotted by the companymittee and during such hours as might be prescribed.
The facts in Appeal No.
In response to this, a companyoperative society was.
Thereupon, the Committee stopped accepting licence fee from these squatters hawkers.
490492 of 1967 .
The action of the N.D.M.C. in preventing the petitioner from carrying on his trade without allotting an alternative site was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
4865492 of 1967.
In the companynter affidavit by the Secretary to the New Delhi Municipal Committee hereinafter referred to as the D.M.C. it was stated that the petitioner had numberfundamental right of the kind mentioned in the petition and his right, if any, to early on his business was subject to such reasonable restrictions as the N.D.M.C. might think tit to impose under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act.
By this the terms and companyditions of a permit to be granted to hawkers squatters were decided upon a pro forma of a temporary permit was also settled and on the reverse thereof the companyditions regarding the grant of permit were incorporated.
Sardar Bahadur, for respondent No.
formed and the Health Officer of the Municipal Committee informed the association of the sites which had been approved by the Municipal Committee for the purpose.
The facts in all these appeals bear a close resemblance and these cases were dealt with by a companymon judgment of the High Court.
Madan Bhatia and D. Goburdhun, for the appellants in all the appeals .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. These are seven appeals, by special leave, from a a judgment and order of the Punjab High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal from a judgment and order of a single Judge dated April 7, 1966.
486 of 1967 i.e. Pyare Lals case, as laid in his petition, may be stated by way of specimen.
486 488 and 490 to 492 of 1967 .
2 in C. As.
Various stall holders challenged the aforesaid companydition as unreasonable by way of writ petitions and civil suits.
The restrictions actually imposed upon the squatters hawkers were reasonable and within the ambit of the powers of the D.M.C. The petitioner had been granted a temporary tehbazari permit under the temporary tehbazari permit scheme and according to companydition No.
1 in C. As.
Bishan Narain and Sardar Bahadur, for respondent No.
That numberresolution having been passed annulling the grant of licence to the petitioner, the action of the N.D.M.C. was illegal and without jurisdiction.
He along with the other squatters were carrying on a business which tended to create slums on some of the important roads in New Delhi and as such the temporary tehbazari permit scheme had to be suspended and permission for sale of companyked food was withdrawn.
and by a resolution of 29th June 1962 it was resolved that in future a sub committee would go into the matter of determining the persons or category of persons who would be given licences.
