Delhi High Court slaps street vendor with Rs 10,000 costs after live video from site reveals encroachment

Findings

• The MCD officials made a live video call and the court has seen the petitioner as also the vending site.
• There is no doubt left in the mind of the court that the photographs placed on record by the MCD are correct and the petitioner has made a permanent structure at his vending site, though, the petitioner may have dismantled some part of it for filing of this petition.
• The drain is covered by the petitioner and a path has been made from one passage to the other.
• The sketch which is being filed by the petitioner shows that there is a drain and the petitioner’s vend is after the naala.
• However, the petitioner has created some sort of structure for people to sit covering the naala. The court notices that the naala is completely full of debris and garbage.
• There is no cleanliness whatsoever as is being depicted in the photographs filed by the MCD.
• The COV is issued to the petitioner subject to various conditions. Several of these conditions are being violated by the petitioner.
• Under these circumstances, not inclined to entertain the petition.
• The MCD is free to take action in accordance with law against the petitioner.
• The MCD shall also restore the hygienic conditions after cleaning of the naala with the help of proper equipment so that there is no waterlogging in the area.
• The petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs. 10,000 with the Delhi High Court legal service committee within two weeks.

Plea before Delhi High Court

• The petitioner stated that he has been vending at fish mandi, Ghazipur, Delhi.
• He was also issued a certificate of vending.
• It was the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to vend peacefully by the MCD and alleged that the officials were causing disturbance to his vending activities.
• The petitioner filed a plea under Article 226 of the constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the MCD to not disturb the vending of the petitioner.
• The counsel for the MCD submitted that the petitioner had erected a permanent structure, covered the drain and was using the passage right next to the wall.
• The counsel placed on record several photographs to show the manner in which the drain was covered and encroachments made by the petitioner.
• After the petitioner disputed the photographs, the court directed the MCD officials to make a live video call from the site of vending of the petitioner.
• The matter was thereafter taken up.