Gyan Prakash Gupta and Others vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

Hima Kohli, J.—Pursuant to the order dated 13.9.2011 passed in WP (C) No. 3095/2011, the file of the proceedings held by the respondent No. 3/Public Grievance Commission (PGC) in respect of a complaint dated 30.9.2008 filed by respondent No. 5, was summoned for perusal so as to verify as to whether the petitioners herein were duly represented before respondent No. 3/PGC on the dates anterior to passing of the impugned order dated 21.3.2011, whereunder the complaint of respondent No. 5 was disposed of with the observation that a compromise formula had been evolved between the parties and as per the said formula, it was agreed that in the area marked in red in the site plan placed before respondent No. 3/PGC, there would be no hawking activity and the same would be vacated by the vendors/hawkers and further, the respondent No. 2/MCD and respondent No. 4/Delhi Police would ensure that the area in question remains free of any hawking activity. The relevant records have been summoned by the Registry from the office of respondent No. 3/PGC. A perusal thereof establishes the fact that the petitioners herein were not represented before the respondent No. 3/PGC on the date anterior to the passing of the order dated 21.3.2011.

As regards the short affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4/Delhi Police on 1.9.2011 in WP(C)No.3095/2011, it is stated in para 5 thereof that after a lengthy discussion and much persuasion, a compromise formula had been evolved between respondent No. 2/MCD and respondent No. 5/complainant, whereunder it was agreed that no hawking activity would be permitted at certain earmarked places and that the said area would remain a ''no hawking area''. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit also bears out the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners or their representatives were not present when the aforesaid formula was evolved to settle the grievance of respondent No. 5/complainant.

On a query posed to the counsel for respondent No. 2/MCD as to whether any minutes of the meeting held between the parties, were reduced into writing and got signed by all the parties present, the answer is in the negative.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners is justified in stating that the petitioners were never represented before the respondent No. 3/PGC on the dates anterior to passing of the impugned order dated 21.3.2011 and they cannot be bound down to any compromise formula mentioned in the impugned order dated 21.3.2011. In these circumstances, while setting aside and quashing the order dated 21.3.2011, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petitions with directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, MCD, to convene a meeting to be attended by the petitioners, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 4/Delhi Police, so as to try and resolve the grievance of respondent No. 5/complainant pertaining to law and order problems arising from holding of a Weekly Monday Bazar on a stretch of road between Gurudwara Road to I.P. Extension.

The only difficulty that the petitioner/Association in WP (C) No. 3095/2011 faces is that it is an informal body and has not got registered under the Societies Act, for being legally recognized. Counsel for the petitioners confirms the aforesaid fact and states that to overcome the aforesaid difficulty, all the aggrieved vendors, whether they are parties in the present proceedings or not, shall authorize one/two persons to act as their representative(s) by executing powers of attorney in their favour, whereafter, if some reasonable time is given, the said representatives may be permitted to appear on behalf of the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, MCD, with their grievance. Counsel for the petitioners shall also be entitled to attend the aforesaid meeting.

The date and venue of the meeting shall be notified to the petitioners, through counsel, and to respondent No. 5/complainant directly. The meeting shall be held in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, MCD, within a period of two weeks from today and the issues raised by both the sides shall be examined after a fresh survey of the area is conducted jointly with the local police. The decision that shall be taken by the respondent No. 2/MCD shall then be communicated in writing to the petitioners, through their counsel, as also to the respondent No. 5/complainant and respondent No. 4/Delhi Police.

In case any of the parties is aggrieved by the order that may be passed by respondent No. 2/MCD, they shall be entitled to seek their remedies as per law.

The records summoned from the office of respondent No. 3/PGC be released forthwith. The petitions are disposed of, along with the pending applications.

A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for respondent No. 2/MCD, under the signatures of the Court Master.