# SODAN SINGH v. N.D.M.C. 1\ND ORS - **Citation:** [1998] 1 S.C.R. 629 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1998-02-04 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1998 - **Bench:** S.B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sodan-singh-v-n-d-m-c-1-nd-ors-16140 - **Pages:** 24 ## Headnote B New Delhi Municipal Committee-Hawkers/Squatters-A/location of sites-Recommendations of Thareja Committee-Acceptance of with modifications-Appointment of Chaturvedi Committe-Guidelines and directions issued for a/location of sites-Right to change of trade-Held, C trade should not be unlawful or one in luxurious goods or smuggled goodsN.D.M C. may impose reasonable conditions consistent with Articles 19(l)(g) and 19(2) of the Constitution-Constitution of India-Articles l 9(l)(g) and 19(2). The New Delhi Municipal Committe, consequent upon the directions of this Court in Sadan Singh v. NDMC, [1989] 4 SCC 155, framed a scheme with regard to allocation of sites to squatters/hawkers within NDMC area. It divided the area into five zones and identified the places where the squatters/ hawkers could be permitted to trade in each zone. Under the Scheme, trade D was permitted only in non-licensable goods excluding luxury items imported E or smuggled goods and cooking of sale of food itmes exposed to dust which could cause h~alth hazard. Thereafter, the matter was placed before a Lok Adalat which observed that the work of allocation of sites to individual claimants should be given to a Committee. This Court ordered for appointment of the Committee and ultimately Shri Thareja, a Judicial Officer of Delhi, F was appointed as a one member-Committee. The Thareja Committee identified 116 places in 14 sub-areas of the five zones and found that only 760 individual claimants were eligible to be accommodated. This figure was in addition to the cases of hardship. The Committee compiled the names of eligible applicants, their trade, their G seniority and details of the area occupied. The claimants were divided in three groups: (i) those continuing from prior to 1977: (ii) prior to 1977-80 and (iii) between 1981-87. As to eligibility t1f squatting at various places the Committee considered the eligibility of the claimants and made tentative allotments sub,iect to final allotment later on after the indentified sites were approved by this Court with the scheme for allocation and the list of identified H 629 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R. A squatters was finalised. The Thare.ia Committee )lassed detailed orders and filed its re]Jort before this Comi. The instant 130 interim application were filed challenging the orders )lassed by the Thareja Committee. B It was contended for the NDMC that 33 im)lnrtant ]!laces in the five ' - +' zones were wrongly included by the Thare.ia Committee for allocation of '1-< sites to squatters/ hawkers and they had to be excluded. Disposing of the matter, this Comi C HELD : 1.1. The Thare.ia Committee has based its conclusions on valid material and on the existing factual position at the grass-root level. As reganls the ob.iection of the NDMC to the inclusion of 33 impo1iant ]JI aces. Shri Thareja has also relied U]Jon factual information gathered from ]Jersonal visits made by him to the Jllaccs and kept in mind the manner in which the D N.D.M.C. had itself already granted ce1iain kiosks, squatting or tehbazari rights in these very areas earlier. No excc11tion can be taken to the reasoning and conclusions of the Thareja Committee in regard to these items and to its ultimate recommendations as to the suitability of these areas. There is no ground to modi.fy or set aside the recommendations in regard to these sites. In the result, the recommendation is accepted, the objection of the E NDMC is rejected and, therefore, these 33 sites would get added to the sites already mentioned-resulting in 116 sites. (640-A; 641-A-B] F 1.2. The recommendations of the Thare.ia Committee as to seniority are accepted, subject to the orders passed in the IAS que~iioning the adverse orders passed by the Committee. [641-C] · 1.3. The Thareja Committee rightly recommended time scheduled "sunrise to sun-set"-as has been granted to tehbazari. This recommendation Y is accepted. (639-B] 1.4. The )lrocedure of allocation of sites recommende ## Text _Characters 0–39,873 of 59,654. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39873 for what follows._ T SODAN SINGH A v. N.D.M.C. 1\ND ORS. FEBRUARY 4, 1998 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] B New Delhi Municipal Committee-Hawkers/Squatters-A/location of sites-Recommendations of Thareja Committee-Acceptance of with modifications-Appointment of Chaturvedi Committe-Guidelines and directions issued for a/location of sites-Right to change of trade-Held, C trade should not be unlawful or one in luxurious goods or smuggled goodsN.D.M C. may impose reasonable conditions consistent with Articles 19(l)(g) and 19(2) of the Constitution-Constitution of India-Articles l 9(l)(g) and 19(2). The New Delhi Municipal Committe, consequent upon the directions of this Court in Sadan Singh v. NDMC, [1989] 4 SCC 155, framed a scheme with regard to allocation of sites to squatters/hawkers within NDMC area. It divided the area into five zones and identified the places where the squatters/ hawkers could be permitted to trade in each zone. Under the Scheme, trade D was permitted only in non-licensable goods excluding luxury items imported E or smuggled goods and cooking of sale of food itmes exposed to dust which could cause h~alth hazard. Thereafter, the matter was placed before a Lok Adalat which observed that the work of allocation of sites to individual claimants should be given to a Committee. This Court ordered for appointment of the Committee and ultimately Shri Thareja, a Judicial Officer of Delhi, F was appointed as a one member-Committee. The Thareja Committee identified 116 places in 14 sub-areas of the five zones and found that only 760 individual claimants were eligible to be accommodated. This figure was in addition to the cases of hardship. The Committee compiled the names of eligible applicants, their trade, their G seniority and details of the area occupied. The claimants were divided in three groups: (i) those continuing from prior to 1977: (ii) prior to 1977-80 and (iii) between 1981-87. As to eligibility t1f squatting at various places the Committee considered the eligibility of the claimants and made tentative allotments sub,iect to final allotment later on after the indentified sites were approved by this Court with the scheme for allocation and the list of identified H 629 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R. A squatters was finalised. The Thare.ia Committee )lassed detailed orders and filed its re]Jort before this Comi. The instant 130 interim application were filed challenging the orders )lassed by the Thareja Committee. B It was contended for the NDMC that 33 im)lnrtant ]!laces in the five ' - +' zones were wrongly included by the Thare.ia Committee for allocation of '1-< sites to squatters/ hawkers and they had to be excluded. Disposing of the matter, this Comi C HELD : 1.1. The Thare.ia Committee has based its conclusions on valid material and on the existing factual position at the grass-root level. As reganls the ob.iection of the NDMC to the inclusion of 33 impo1iant ]JI aces. Shri Thareja has also relied U]Jon factual information gathered from ]Jersonal visits made by him to the Jllaccs and kept in mind the manner in which the D N.D.M.C. had itself already granted ce1iain kiosks, squatting or tehbazari rights in these very areas earlier. No excc11tion can be taken to the reasoning and conclusions of the Thareja Committee in regard to these items and to its ultimate recommendations as to the suitability of these areas. There is no ground to modi.fy or set aside the recommendations in regard to these sites. In the result, the recommendation is accepted, the objection of the E NDMC is rejected and, therefore, these 33 sites would get added to the sites already mentioned-resulting in 116 sites. (640-A; 641-A-B] F 1.2. The recommendations of the Thare.ia Committee as to seniority are accepted, subject to the orders passed in the IAS que~iioning the adverse orders passed by the Committee. [641-C] · 1.3. The Thareja Committee rightly recommended time scheduled "sunrise to sun-set"-as has been granted to tehbazari. This recommendation Y is accepted. (639-B] 1.4. The )lrocedure of allocation of sites recommended by the Thareja G Committee and the recommendation for giving three options in the zone is accepted ~ub.iect only to one modification that the allocation will be according to seniority as decided by the Committee and not by draw of lots. [644-A) 2.1. Sri V.C. Chaturvedi, working as Joint Registrar in the High Court of Delhi is nominated to undertake the various duties and functions H enumerated and com]Jlete the .iob. He will decide rival options for each place ,Y SODAN SINGH v. N.D.M.C. 631 and for that purpose it may evolve its own procedure consistent with natural A justice. The NDMC would issue orders directing the Directorate of Estate and the Director of Enforcement to help and implement the decisions, directions or orders of Sri V.C. Chaturvedi.1649-B-DI 2.2. The Chaturvedi Committee (sole member) shall issue notice to . the concerned parties and the NDMC in regard to each of the places ·at which B squatting/hawking is permitted as per th.t Trareja Committee Report and decide on the basis of seniority and reservation, size of place and such other relevant material as may be placed before the Committee, as to who should be allotted at what place. The Committee shall give an opportunity of being heard and pass reasoned orders. 1650-D-E) C 2.3. The Thareja Committee has recommended that all approved claimants-though they were squatting prior to l.1.1990 and were allowed to continue under orders passed by the Committee-should pay the arrears of tehbazari charges.only from l.1.1990 and that the arrears prior to l.l.1990 be waived by the NDMC. So far as arrears after l.l.1990 are concerned it D has been stated that the tehbazari charges for a space of 6'x 4' are Rs. 240. p.m. and that for a space of 4' x 3' are 120. p.m. The Chaturvedi. Committee would examine, in case of dispute, the facts in each case relating to arrears oftehbazari charges for the period after 1.1.1990 and decide the extent of arrears in each case after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, to the claimants found eligible by the Thareja Committee. Deduction win be E given for any amounts already paid for the period after l.l.1990 provided adequate proof is produced therefor. (651-A] 2.4. In case it is decided by the Chaturvedi Committee that any eligible claimant is in arrears of tehbazari dues for any period after l.1.1990 then the said Committee shall fix a date before which the arrears have to be paid. F In case of default of clamant in payment and his rights having ceased, the Chaturvedi Committee will consider if the vacancy can be allotted to any other claimant already declared eligible by the Thareja Committee. Pending a decision on arrears the claimants will be permitted to carry on their avocations at the places tentatively designated by the Thareja Committee, G subject of course to final allotment of places by the Chaturvedi Committee. 1651-A; 651-C-D] 2.5. So far as the construction of kiosks is concerned permission may be obtained from Delhi Urban Arts Commission and also from the Archaeological Survey of India and the Department of Archaeology of the Government of the National Capital Territory, New Delhi. But, in the H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998] 1 S.C.R. A meanwhile if tentative allotment is already made by the Thareja Comm'ittee or there are authorised occupants, they will not be disturbed, pending construction of kiosks. In the event of the Urban Arts Commission or the Archaeology Department not approving any of the sites for kiosks identified by the Thareja Committee, the said places shall be available for tehbazari and B the Chaturvedi Committee shall consider the said places for tehbazari and make such final allotment as it may deem fit, in accordance with the procedure already indicated. 2.6. A reading of the Thareja Committee Report and connected documents does show that in several areas unauthorised squatters or hawkers C have been allowed to conduct their operations. These unauthorised squatters/ hawkers will be removed by the NDMC forthwith. (645-D-EJ 2.7. No IAs will be allowed to be filed against the Thareja Committee Report or against individual orders passed by said Committee before it submitted its Report in this Court. As regards the pending IAs, they would D be disposed of by this Court by the time the Chaturvedi Committee gives its report. [647-E-FJ 2.8. The decisions of the Chaturvedi Committee both on the question of allotment of the kiosk/stall or the sites for tehbazari and also as to quantum of arrears of tehbazari shall be final, as was recommended by the E Lok Adalat on 19.11.1989 and shall not be questioned either by the claimants or the NDMC before any authority, Tribunal, a court of law, the High Court or in this Court. No petition shall be registered in this behalf by the above bodies. The Chaturvedi Committee only may file IAs in the appeal seeking any direction or clarification and none others. [651-H; 652-A) F 3.1. As regards change of trade, if the trade is not unlawful or if it is not one in 'luxurious goods' or 'smuggled goods', the NDMC may, impose reasonable conditions for the enjoyment of the right consistent.with Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(2) of the Constitution. If the orders of the NDMC or the conditions imposed by it in this regard are unreasonable or arbitrary or contrary to any provisions of law, it would be open to the aggrieved parties G to avail all remedies at law. (647-E-Fl 3.2. The eligible squatters who were selling lotteries which have since been barred, such claimants will apply to the concerned authority in the NDMC for change of trade. The NDMC shall, if such new trade is not a prohibited one nor one relating to imported or luxury items, grant the H request for change in trade. [648-H; 649-AJ - <··~ SODAN SINGH v. N.D.M.C. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 633 Sodan Singh v. ND.MC, [1989] 4 SCC 155 and Sodan Singh v. A ND.MC. [1992] 2 SCC 458, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.87 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 268of1987. B R.F. Nariman, Raju Ramachandran, D.D. Thakur, M.P. Verma, M.M. Kashyap, Ohan Singh Nagar, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, (Mrs. M.R. Bhardwaj) (NP), Harish Chander, Mrs. B.K. Brar, M.K. Singh, Ashok K. Srivastava for Petitioner-in-person in I.A. No. 67, Santosh Gupta, K.K. Gupta, Arun K. Sinha, Rajeev Sharma, Krishan Mahajan, P.H. Parekh, Amit Dhingra, C N.K. Sahoo, Dr. LB. Gaur, S.S. Ray, Ms. Rakhi Ray H.A. Raichura, Manoj Prasad, S.D. Sharma, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Ms. Subhadara Chaturvedi, Rajesh Nair, Ms. Suman Rastogi, Shiv Pujan Singh, (Irshad Ahmed) (NP), Kirpal Singh, Debashish Mishra, V. Menon, L.K. Gupta, Rajiv Kaul, Adhya Gupta, D.K. Garg, K.G. Bhagat, (P. Chowdhary) (NP), Ms. Rani Chhabra for Ms. Indira D Sawhney, in l.A.No.127, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, K.L.Vohra, P.C. Mudgal, Mohan Panday, K.B. Rohatgi, Ms. Aparna Rohatggi Jain, (S.B. Sharma) for Ms. Pratibha Jain in I.A.No. 0120., M.A. Krishnamurthy, (P.H. Parekh) for Sita Ram in I.A.No. 68 R.K. Maheshwari and Shalley Bhasin for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted. This judgment is in continuation of two earlier judgments of this Court rendered in this very case, which is a public interest case concerning the hawkers, squatters, etc, in the public streets in the New Delhi Municipal F Committee area. The first of the judgments was rendered by a Constitution Bench on 30.8.1989 in Sodan Singh v. ND.MC., [1989]4 SCC 155 and the second was rendered on 13 .3 .1992 by a three Judge Bench in Sodan Singh v. ND.MC., [1992] 2 SCC 458. In sub- para 6 of para 10 of the latter judgment, all cases then pending except one (the case now before us) were treated as disposed of and claimants wer.e permitted to seek further directions in future G as and when the Thareja Committee Report (to which we shall presently refer) was given. The said report was given in May 1996 and thereafter about 130 IAs where filed in this S.L.P. pursuant to the permission granted as stated above. We heard there IAs. We have also heard the objections of the N.D.M.C. to the Thareja Committee Report. Counsel made various submissions on 6th, H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R. A 7th & 8th January. Several !As were rejected at the time of the said hearing. In some !As where the claimants were found 'eligible' by the Thareja T,. Committee, orders were passed adopting the recommendations of the Committee as orders of the Court subject to "general directions" to be given in the case now before us. Some IAs of 'eiligible' claimants were adjourned and are being B disposed of separately. c We shall make a brief reference to the events which have taken place hitherto and then deal with the issues argued before us. The first Sadan Singh case - [1989] 4 SCC 155 : This decision was by. a Constitution Bench of this Court and was rendered on 30.8.1989. It was held that the right to carry on trade or business was not covered by Article 21 of the Constitution of India but was covered by Article 19 (I )(g) and could be reasonably restricted by law made under Article 19( 6). It was held that hawking on road-sides fell within the expression D 'occupation, trade or business' in Article 19(l)(g). It was also held that all puca streets and roads vest in the State but the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public and the members of the public are beneficiaries entitled to use thein as a matter of right. The Municipality has full authority to permit 'hawkers and squatters' on the side walks wherever the Municipality considers E it practicable and convenient, under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (or Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957). But there cannot be a fundamental right vested in a citizen to occupy any particular place on the pavement where he can squat and engage in trading business. Nor can the hawkers ~ssert a fundamental right to occupy any place permanently on a pavement. If the circumstances are appropriate and a small trader can do some F business for personal gianon the pavement to the advantage of the general public and without discomfort or annoyance to others, there can be no objection. Hawkers cannot be permitted to squat on every road. Various circumstances-such as whether the road is narrow, whether it is located close to a hospital or whether there is need for security measures in a particular G area, etc. and similar relevent factors are to be taken into account for permitting business on a particular road. Licence has to be given for trading but this does not mean that licence is to be given on a daily basis. Regard must be had also to the provisions of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and Delhi Control of Vehicular and other Traffic on Roads & Streets Regulation, 1980. This Court, on a consideration of all the above factors, directed the New Delhi Municipal H Committee to frame a scheme in regard to the areas or places where hawking/ .. .... + ,-J. ~ ' ., -~ -( - ' ... l SODAN SINGH v. N.D.M.C. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 635 squatting is to be permitted and as to the number of squatters that could be A allowed. The authorities would be fully justified in refusing any facility to hawkers who sell costly !11Xwy articles. The right is basically for poor hawkers and not to sellers of luxury items or smuggled goods. Broadly, these are the directions given in the first Sadan Sing's case. The NDMC Scheme: (10.11.1989) B Pursuant to the directions above stated, the N.D.M.C. came forward with a detailed scheme on 10.11.1989. Under the said scheme, the N.D.M.C. area was divided into 5 Zones and the places where these squatters or hawkers could be permitted to trade in each zone were identified. It was also c stated that squatting will not be permitted in certain areas because of certain unique characteristics of the area or because of the place being securitysensitive. However, existing permission of Tehbazari or Kiosks in some of these areas were not to b~ disturbed. Squatting would not be permitted on the footpaths or on road so far as major roads are concerned. No permissions, in verandah of markets which have been declared as public streets, were to D be granted. Annexure A of the scheme gives details of places in each zone where squatting/hawking could be permitted and the total number, of the stalls, kiosks, pan tharas, Mocho tharas, cycle repair tharas, telephone booths, tax booths, vegetable tharas, tehbazari or tolerations which could be given in E each zone and also those which could be given on compassionate grounds. Annexure B of the scheme gives the total of stalls, kiosk, etc. already built as 1089 degree and states that the number of existing pennissions for Tehbazari is 228 and tolerations 106. Still, there are 1500 squatters in N.D.M.C. area to be provide for and eligibility of claimants was to be considered as per criteria F stated in para 6 of the Scheme. Under para 6 of the scheme squatters were divide into 3 categories, (i) those before 1977. (ii) those between 1978 to 1980 and (iii) those between 1981 and 1987. The first category who are the seniormost, would get kiosks/stalls subject to availability. Further, "till they are allotted kiosks/stalls, they will be G given permission for tehbazari on usual charges". The second category of eligible squatters of 1978-1980 will be given tehbazari permission in their respective area subject to availability of stalls, unless there are kiosks/stalls available as per their seniority. The third category of eligible squatters of 1981 to 1987 would also be considered for allotment of tehbazari, in case suitable vacant spaces in respective zones are available for such allotment. A further H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998] I S.C.R. A procedure for reservation was spelled out as follows: B (a) general category (60%); (b) SC/ST category (12 112%); (c) physically handicapped {10%); (d) Ex-serviceman (2 112%); (e) war-widows (2%); (t) freedom fighters (3%); (g) extreme hardship and humanitarian grounds (I 0%). Paras 7 and 8 of the Scheme mention the conditions for allotment of tehbazari. Only non-licensable trades excluding sophisticated luxury items, imported or smuggled goods) are to be permitted i.e. Pan, Biri, Cigarette, etc. No cooking or sale of food items exposed to dust which could cause health hazard; - was to be permitted. Not more than one person from a family was to be allotted. Para 9 of the Scheme dealt with the issue of hawking licences. C This question of eligibility was to be examined by a Committee to be appointed. The Lok Ada/at (Dated 19./ 1.1989) and recommendation as to 'finality'. After the Scheme was framed as above, a Lok Adalat, presided by a learned Judge of this Court and a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court D was held and the learned Judges observed that the job allotment to individual claimants should be given to a Committee consisting of 2 members from the N.D.M.C. and a Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge. It was further directed that E "the decision by the Committee shall be binding and jinaf'. In other words, the decisions of the said allotment Committee was to be final. Supreme Court Orders dated 21)2.1989, /.2.1990. 9.2.1990: We shall next briefly to refer to certain orders of this Court. It was directed on 21.12.1989 that the District Judge, Delhi should nominate a judicial F officer with the previous concurrence of the High Court to carry out the suggestion made by the Lok Adalat. It was again directed on 1.2.1990 that initially 100 cases should be examined. By another order dated 9.2.1990 it was directed that the Judicial Officer nominated. could even make surprise inspections etc. and work on a whole time basis. G The Judicial Officer nominated was Mr. Thareja. He gave an interim report. On 29.1.1991 this Court noticed that 5000 applications were pending before the Officer. This Court directed that the Committee will consist only of Mr. Thareja. In a latter order dated 28. l 0.1991. this Court stated that the timings 4.00 PM to 9.00 PM suggested by the N.D.M.C. for the hawkers were H not acceptable and that 12.00 Noon to 7.00 PM could be more appropriate. + ... SODAN SINGH v. N.D.M.C. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 637 The second Sadan Singh Case: [1992 (2) SCC 458] (13.3.1996) A •. + / The second judgment is dated 13.3.1992. '"(his court, initially rejected the complaint that the Thareja Committee was applying very strict standards of proof for eligibility and that this was affecting interests of bonafide claimants. But in order to protect genuine claimants, this Court gave a set of nine ·-4directions. We do not propose to refer to all of them except two. Under B direction 8, the Thareja Committee was to draw up a list of squatters/hawkers identified by it. Under direction 9, the Committee was to draw up a seniority list of squatters/hawkers and the Committee was to "suggest sites within the zone;over and above those already identified". All pending cases were to be treated as disposed of, except one case. No Court was to entertain any fresh c case. Public notice & cut off dated (22.5.1992): As directed in para 12 of the second Sadan Singh's case, public notice was given inviting claims before the Thareja Committee and a cut off date D -~ namely 22.5.1992 was fixed. Pursuant thereto, several claims were received. In all, there were 5627 claims before the Committee, including 126 review petitions. The Thareja Committee Report (May, 1996) : The Committee examined 5627 claims in a very detailed fashion during ...... a period of 5 112 years and passed detailed orders in every case, examining E the evidence produced by both sides. We have gone through the Report and have also read a large number of individual orders passed by the Committee. It was against those orders that the 130 !As were filed in this Court questioning the adverse orders passed against some of the claimants. .. We must place on record our deep sense of appreciation for the F ~ tremendous work done by Mr. Thareja al)d the trouble he had taken in completing these cases. He had also visited the places where the hawking was being done or was claimed as being done, - on various occasions with or without notice to verify facts. He has also applied a judicial and humanitarian approach to the problems of the hawkers. At the sametime, he has also took G X" care to apply principles which eliminated any possible manipulations by the employees of the N.D.M.C. or exploitation by them of these squatters/hawkers ~ regarding which there were complaints before him. , ' The Thareja Committee took up the question of identification of sites. Fourteen sub areas in the 5 zones were identified., Other areas which were H 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998) 1 S.C.R. A not accepted by N.D.M.C., were subjected to detailed scrutiny to find out if the objections raised by the NDMC were tenable. The Thareja Committee, in Chapte~ II, has dealt with the individual sites in each zone (page 56 to 310) and took up the objections of the NDMC in respect of each site, and rejected almost all the objections of the N.D.M.C., particularly in regard to lucrative areas. The Committee has given elaborate and very tenable and rational B reasons. This part of the Report is from page 56 to page 310, nearly 250 pages. We shall deal with these areas lower down. The Committee has also gone into claims of individual claimants and found only 760 as eligible persons to be accommodated. This figure is in addition to the cases of 'hardship'. The Committee also compiled a separate volume (volume 2) of the Report in C respect of the names of eligible applicants, their trade and their seniority and details of the area occupied (6'x 4' or 4 x 3' or stall-kiosk) alongwith the photograph of the particular claimant. The Committee here referred to the 760 claimants and also the other cases coming under the category of hardship. This volume 2 runs to more than 200 pages. As to eligibility of squatting at various places, the Committee considered several claimants eligible and made D tentative allotments, subject to final allotment later on. The Committee said (page 38 of its Report): E F "Since the N.D.M.C. is contesting the sites identified, it is yet not finally settled which sites are available for purposes of allocation to the squatters. The sites identified have been dealt with in Chapter 11....Thus even the list of squatters is not final as yet. In this view of the matter, no site has ben allocated to an individual squatter. The scheme of allocation of sites, however, has been described in brief in Chapter III. The sites can be actually allocated only after the identified sites are approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Scheme for. allocation is approved and also the list of identified squatters is finalised". Thus the occupation of these places by eligible squatters as decided by the Thareja Committee is only tentative and subject to regular allotment after a decision is arrived at as to whether the places in regard to which the NDMC claimed exclusion (see below) would be accepted by the Thareja G Committee and by this Court. The tentative allocation by the Thareja Committee is also subject to further final allotment on the basis of priorities between the three groups of squatters i.e. those before 1977, those between 1977 to 1980 and those between 1981 to 1987. Final allotment depended also on Seniority and reservation ratio of the squatters in each of the three groups. H An important aspect of timings as to "squatting. hawkers "was --'!' SODAN SINGH v. N.D.M.C. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 639 considered by the Committee (pages 44-45) to say that neither the hawkers A nor the N.D.M.C. officials were acting in accordance with the timings referred to by this Court in one of its orders dated 28.10.1991. It was pointed out by the Committee that those who were settling with N.D.M.C. officials were being allowed all 24 hours while others not so inclined were being harassed and discriminated against. This resulted in a flood of !As being filed before the B Committee in regard to timings alone. The Thareja Committee therefore recommended time schedule as "sun-rise to sun-set" - as has been granted to tehbazari''. We accept this recommendation to the above said ex1ent. One of the eligibility criteria followed by Thareja Committee; In respect of the period (l) prior to 1977 (2) 1978-80 (3) 1981-87 c D The Thareja Committee was prepared to condone absence of proof of squatting/hawking only for one year. Further the squatting/hawking after 1987 upto date of inspection by the Committee has been also gone into. In other Words those who were squatting in the periods (with only year gap) were to E be squatting even after 1988. For the period after 1988 also only one year gap ha5 been condoned. This principle was followed uniformly. Some claimants whose claims were rejected on this basis have filed !As. We have rejected them as we have agreed with the principles adopted by the Thareja Committee. Submissions of N.D.MC. in this Court in regard to rejection of NDMC's F objections to some sites: In regard to the some important and if fact lucrative areas to which the N.D.M.C. had objection before the Committee and which objections were rejected by the Thareja Committee, the N.D.M.C. has filed before us its written G submissions on 19.7.1997. The said objections (at pp 77 to 84 in the paper book of IA 3/91) also list out 76 sites for which the N.D.M.C. has no objection. While making these written submissions, the NDMC has also g!_ven number of kiosks and/or tehbazari which could be accommodated iayanous places for which there was no objection. Total number of the available places is also given. H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R. A In addition 7 sites are proposed by the N.D.M.C. mostly for kiosks or for covered Thara and, one place for 6 tehbazari. The Thareja Committee while rejecting the objections of the NDMC in respect of these areas and including them in the list of acceptable places, has also given the figures of how many kiosks, squatter or tehbazari can be B accommodate iri. these areas. Objections were raised before us by the NDMC in regard to (i) 26 important places in the various zones, (ii) place in Sarojini Nagar and (iii) six otherplaces in some zones -in all 33. Learned senior counsel forthe N.D.M.C. C Sri R.K. Maheshwari made his submissions in regard to each of these items and referred to the reasons given by Mr. Thareja and contended that these sites were wrongly included by the Committee and have to be excluded and further that the reasons given by the Thareja Committee are not sound. The objections of the N.D.M.C. in respect of these sites fall into the D various categories : (i) Pedestrians hindrances and major road, (ii) falls under development scheme (iii) adds to congestion (iv) disturbs unique character of Connaught Place (v) traffic congestion (vi) security problem and major road (vii) over crowded (viii) over congested (ix) no further scope. Part 9 of the report of the Thareja Committee from pp 56 to 310 dealing with these aspects has been read before us by the learned counsel for NDMC for 2 days on 6th E and 7th January. taking up item by item. The reasons given by the Thareja Committee were challenged. We have heard these submissions and have also gone through the elaborate reasons given by the Thareja Committee in regard to each of these 33 places. We do not propose to record our reasons nor to deal with each F item independently. We are indeed not sitting in appeal. Further, we are keeping in mind the recommendation as to 'finality' made in the Lok Adalat on 19.11.1989. Further the plea of the NDMC that certain areas fall under 'development scheme' was a plea not raised before the Thareja Committee and lias been raised for the first time before us. We find that the Redevelopment G Scheme prepared by the DDA is of March 1993 and the NDMC had full knowledge thereof long before May l 996 when the Thareja Committee Report was submitted to this court. Hence this ground is liable to be rejected. We are satisfied that Mr. Thareja has based his conclusions on valid material and on the existing factual position at the grass-root level. He has also relied upon factual information gathered from personal visits made by him to these places · H and kept in mind the manner in which, the N.D.M.C. had itself already granted )~ +·+ ... SODAN SINGH v. N.D.M.C. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 641 certain kiosks, squatting or tehbazari rights in these very areas earlier. In our A view no exception can be taken to the reasoning and conclusions of the Thareja Committee in regard to these items and to its ultimate recommendations as to the suitability (or otherwise) of these areas. We do not find any grounds to modify or set aside the recommendations in regard to these sitt:s. In the result, we accept the recommendation, reject the objection of the NDMC and B therefore these 33 sites would get added to the 76 and 7 sites already mentioned - resulting in 116 sites. (In this connection, our order in IA No. 114/ 97 may also be seen). As already stated, the Thari