DHARAM CHAND versus CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS

DHARAM CHAND versus CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS

While the appellant has a right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g), this is subject to reasonable restrictions for public security and community interest. Security considerations regarding the Supreme Court premises outweigh the individual's interest in the present case. The order of relocation is justified and not unconstitutional.

Parties
Appellant: Dharam Chand; Respondents: Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench of Delhi High Court, Dismissing Letters Patent Appeal Against Single Judge's Order in a Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tehbazari Rights, Relocation of Squatter, Security Restrictions on Right to Livelihood, Regulation of Hawkers, Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(1)(g)
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Municipal Law Tehbazari Rights Relocation of Squatter Security Restrictions on Right to Livelihood Regulation of Hawkers Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(1)(g)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dharam Chand

Appellant

Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench of Delhi High Court, Dismissing Letters Patent Appeal Against Single Judge's Order in a Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relocation of appellant's kiosk due to security concerns violates his constitutional right to livelihood
  2. 2 Whether executive action without legislative basis can restrict fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g)
  3. 3 If public and security interests outweigh individual rights in this context

Ratio Decidendi

While the appellant has a right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g), this is subject to reasonable restrictions for public security and community interest. Security considerations regarding the Supreme Court premises outweigh the individual's interest in the present case. The order of relocation is justified and not unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with High Court's order
  • Relocation order stands, appellant not permitted to continue kiosk business at original site