JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Ranjit Kumar is permitted to withdraw from the W.P. (C) No. 1699 of 1987 since Mr. Maheshwari is attending to it. I.A. No. 35 of 1994 2. Nothing further remains to be done as necessary action has been taken. Hence I.A. disposed of. I.A. Nos. 36-37 3. We have heard the learned Senior counsel Mr. Tarkunde as well as Mr. Maheshwari for the MCD. We have also been apprised of the action taken for implementing our orders passed earlier in point of time. There have been certain grievances made by individual hawkers as well as the associations in regard to the implementation of the scheme by the MCD. It is impossible for the Court to go through each grievance but in order to ensure that the MCD has carried out and has enforced the scheme as per the directions of this Court given in Gainda Ram's case JT 1993 (3) SC 796) ( 1993(2) SCALE 893 ) we would like to appoint a Judicial Officer to look into the question whether implementation of the scheme by the MCD committee has been made consistently with the norms and procedure indicated by this Court and make a report to us. We may clarify that the Judicial Officer is not appointed for the purpose of reviewing individual cases but will be confined to examining whether the MCD Committee had adhered to the directions given by this Court for implementing the scheme. For this purpose if random sample checking is necessary he will be at liberty to do so. He is required to examine whether there has been a designed and deliberate departure from the scheme by the MCD Committee. that is what he must look into and report to this Court. The implementation of the scheme will, however, not Order dated May 13,1994 in I.A. Nos. 35,36 & 37 of 1994 I.A. No. of 1994 in W.P. No. 1699 of 1987 be hampered on this account. It may be made clear that MCD will proceed to complete this scheme subject to what we have said above. Insofar as the order of March 4, 1994 is concerned, we give one further and last opportunity to those who are covered under that order to submit their preferences within 10 days from today. This is the last and final chance and on no ground will time be extended. Insofar as the order of March 4, 1994 is concerned, we give one further and last opportunity to those who are covered under that order to submit their preferences within 10 days from today. This is the last and final chance and on no ground will time be extended. The MCD will consider the preference and take action in accordance therewith as early as possible. 4. Mr. Tarkunde submitted that in I.A. No. 37 of 1994 he has pointed out that in the city zone the total number of claimants approved and accepted was 990 but the said number was without any rhyme or reason shrunk to 728, whereas Mr. Maheshwari states that 990 was an error which was corrected to 728. But Mr. Maheshwari could not spell out the error. We would, therefore, direct that those 262 persons who were included in the list of 990 by the MCD Committee but whose names got deleted on the shrinkage of the list to 728 shall not be disturbed, if not already disturbed, till further orders and till the MCD has satisfied us that the figure 990' was a mistake and the correct figure is 728'. If, however, they have been removed from the area this order will riot entitle their being replaced at the same place but subject to their rights to be placed in the same place if entitled after scrutiny by this Court, they will be given alternative sites of their preference before 16th May, 1994 as stated by Mr. Maheshwari. If they have not given their preferences thy will be given alternative sites in accordance with their standing. However, if they give their preferences within the extended ten days time, the MCD will readjust them to the extent possible. 5. We request the learned Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to spare the services of a Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional District Judge to carry into effect this order. 6. I.A. No. 36 of 1994 will stand disposed of accordingly. 7. I.A. No. 37 will stand over. 8. I.A. No. of 1994 is dismissed as withdrawn.