The Delhi HC on 16.01.2019, in BHOLA RAM PATEL v NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR, disposed of the review petition while expressing its view that it had no inclination to review the judgment.

FACTS:
The individuals being the street vendors while approaching the court came up with the grievance they had been a subject of the municipal authorities as well as police’s whims to such level that their regular lives were under threat in spite of the fact they were carrying on the business and the street vending past several years, further contending that the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 ,was enacted for providing a protective cover and as a statutory guarantee against the eviction of the street vendors until roper mechanisms had been ensured for proper surveying of the areas that had been occupied by them for determining suitable areas for vending while the allotment process of license was completed.

The appeal was disposed of by the Court after due consideration being given to the facts and submissions along with directions such as:

I) Survey being conducted by TVC as per the Scheme.

II) There shall be no disturbances caused to any pre-existing “right holder” except determined by TVC that the space/ place that had been occupied by them does not go in consonance, etc.

However, the contention was raised by the review applicant that the concerned Act contemplates a two-stage survey, while the law specifies a single-stage survey following the determining of the areas, along with earmark of the spaces/areas for the vending zones being at a subsequent stage. The Hence, the review aimed at seeking and recalling and modifying the judgment as such judgment delivered tends to operate in rem while having immense repercussions from public making it necessary for corrective action to be uptaken by the Court.

DECISION HELD BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT:
The Delhi High Court while disposing of the review petition held in its judgment that it was not inclined in reviewing the judgment especially a reason being that appeal had been filed by many individual street vendors out of which few were content with the judgment and had not approached the court for modifying the judgment. One more reason why the court is not inclined to review the judgment is that it was made in the course of appeals filed by several individual street vendors.

[1] Read Full Judgment:

[embeddoc url=”http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SRB/judgement/16-01-2019/SRB16012019LPA1362016.pdf” download=”all”]