Sh. Sangam Singh and Others, Abdul Hamid and Others, Noor Ahmed and Another, Mohd. Ibrahim and Others, Tasleem Begum and Others, Ashok Kumar, Krishan Lal Khosla, Kanwar Lal, Sh. Bhagat Singh and Vijay Chander vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another

Manmohan Sarin, J.—Rule.

With the consent of parties, these writ petitions involving common questions and reliefs are taken up for disposal.

These batch of writ petitions are field by the petitioners, who were found to be ineligible for squatting rights. In terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 1.12.2000 in CW.No.D-13257/2000, titled Jant''a Hawkers Welfare Committee Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, applications of the ineligible squatters were to be considered by the Corporation for the grant of hawking license u/s 420 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Court had also given liberty to the petitioners to move the High Court Counsel for respondent submits that due to sheer volume and magnitude of the work involved, it has not been possible to dispose of the applications. In my view this is a piquant situation, where the directions given by the Supreme Court to dispose of the application within two months, could not be carried out. As such, petitions, are deprived of seeking legal redress in case of rejection of their applications. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grave hardship is being caused to them inasmuch as, while their applications are pending consideration, respondent/MCD is seeking to dis-lodge them from their sites and even to prevent them from functioning and selling their wares as Hawkers.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he recognises that it may not be possible to permit these petitioners to remain in the non-squatting zones as squatters. However, he submits that for the time being, till their applications for grant of hawking license are disposed of, they may be permitted to sell their wares as Hawkers, subject t furnishing proof of their identity and the pendency of their applications. The submission is reasonable and learned counsel for respondent/MCD has nothing concrete or tenable in opposition to it. Ordered accordingly.

The writ petitions stand disposed of in above teams with liberty to the parties to move the Court in case the applications for hawking licenses are not decided within three months from today.

A copy of the order be given dusty to counsel for the parties.