JUDGMENT : Letter No. 4 dated 6.10.1998 : 1. (i) We have heard Mr. Chaturvedi in support of his letter. There is no objection from any one on the grant of the prayers mentioned therein. It is therefore, directed that time granted for completion of the work as earlier given upto 31.10.1998 will now stand extended upto 28.2.1999. 2. (ii) If all the 100 and add files are available with the Registry of this Court, the same shall be forwarded to Shri Chaturvedi, otherwise Shri Chaturvedi is to get the copies of the papers containing those files from the Office of the N.D.M.C. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for N.D.M.C. has agreed to do the needful in this connection. 3. (iii) So far as the grievance regarding construction of Kiosks is concerned, time for constructing the stalls in place of site No. 113 is extended upto 31.1.1999. Letter No. 5 dated 6.10.1998 with LA. No. 149: 4. (A) Having heard Mr. Anup Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for Sohan Lal who is one of the 23 persons who have made a grievance regarding identification of zones, at the request of learned senior counsel, one weeks time is granted to enable him to file his response in connection with the grievance of Sohan Lal. Shri Chaturvedi submitted that he is to go by Thareja Committee specification and according to him these disputants, 23 in number, are allowed sites in different zones and these disputants claim that they should be allotted in other zones. This question can be examined after the response is filed as aforesaid. For that purpose this grievance in letter No. 5 will be considered on 18.12.1998 at 2.00 p.m.. 5. In the meantime, it is clarified that Mr. Chaturvedi may also serve written notices to all these 23 disputants calling upon them to get appropriate clarification from this court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice failing which he may proceed further in connection with allotment of sites to them according to what Thareja Committee has stated. 6. (B) So far as the second clarification sought for in letter No. 5 is concerned, after hearing Mr. 6. (B) So far as the second clarification sought for in letter No. 5 is concerned, after hearing Mr. Chaturvedi and learned counsel for the respective parties it is clarified that pursuant to our earlier order dated 15.5.1998, we have already stated that those sites which are already available with the person having the same type of trade should be allotted to similarly situated other persons. Therefore, if any person is selling readymade garments in the area in question, if similar persons are doing similar business in similar sizes of sites, same should be given to other similar persons waiting in the queue. 7. We may also mention that the sites for Barbers, Cobblers, Pan Thada holders admeasuring 4' x 3' are being given as per the policy and as per recommendation of the Thareja Committee. 8.(C) So far as the grievance in letter No. 5 relating to non- payment of Tehbazari charges by about applicants in all, we have heard learned senior counsel in support of such applicants in I.A. No. 149 which will be disposed of by our present order. We deem fit to allow time to those late latifs to up all arrears on or before 15.1.1999 beyond which date no further time will be extended, in default, they will lose their seniority and no further rights would survive under the scheme. Shri Chaturvedi may also serve registered notices to the remaining persons who might not have known about this order, calling upon them to clear up all the arrears by the time limited granted by us by this order which will also apply to them so that the time limit on 15.1.1999 can be adhered to strictly by them. This disposes of I.A. 149. 9. (D) So far as the grievance made in the paragraph of letter No. 5 of Shri Chaturvedi is concerned, after hearing Shri Chaturvedi and learned counsel for the N.D.M.C., Mr. Mahsehwari, it is directed that the Committee has to allow sites to persons mentioned in Thareja Committee report and whose names have been cleared by the Committee and for that purpose Mr. Chaturvedi may issue notices to those eligible persons and may verify whether that particular person is available to occupy such shites. Mr. Chaturvedi submitted that he has also completed that exercise. Therefore, in our view, no further order needs to be passed in connection with this grievance. 10. Chaturvedi may issue notices to those eligible persons and may verify whether that particular person is available to occupy such shites. Mr. Chaturvedi submitted that he has also completed that exercise. Therefore, in our view, no further order needs to be passed in connection with this grievance. 10. (E) So far as the objections as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the letter is concerned, whatever allotment is suggested by Thareja Committee concerning any member of the family, one or more, will be strictly adhered to by Shri Chaturvedi meaning thereby, neither N.D.M.C. nor the allottee will be permitted to go behind what is suggested by Thareja Committee. 11. (F) So far as the third objection of N.D.M.C. in paragraph 10 goes, we have heard learned counsel for the N.D.M.C., Mr. Maheshwari and Shri Chaturvedi and other learned counsel for the respective parties. We deem it fit to clarify that if any allotment is recommended by Thareja Committee in its report in connection with any allottee, then existing, who have subsequently unfortunately died and if any of his legal heirs claims such allotment pursuant to the said report then subject to verification of his eligibility and also after obtaining no objection from other heirs, allotment may be made to the said eligible heir by Shri Chaturvedi. (G) So far as the fourth objection in paragraph 10 of the letter is concerned, it is made clear that as recommended by Thareja Committee allotment of sites to be made to those persons who are engaged in licensed trades and according to the Health Rules. If it is found that the trade which is pursued is contrary to Health Rules or is not licensed trade, and if they want to change the trade and they do not move for such change of trade, on or before 31.1.1999, then allotment as recommended by Thareja Committee will not be made. If, however, if any one asks for any change of trade and which change is permissible under the Rules as licensed trade or trade which is not contrary to Health Rules then permission to change the trade can be granted by N.D.M.C. authorities within two weeks from the date of such application. Mr. Chaturvedi agrees to give written notice to all such claimants. 12. Mr. Chaturvedi agrees to give written notice to all such claimants. 12. It is also made clear that in case, sites cannot be allowed as aforesaid to the claimants whose cases are covered by Thareja Committee it will be open to Shri Chaturvedi to allot sites to other eligible squatters and who are also cleared by Thareja Committee. Letter No. 6 : 13. So far as paragraph 3 of this letter mentioning at Sl. 32 in Volume II of Thareja Committee the claimant, Subhash Chandra is concerned, we are informed that Thareja Committee has found him to be an eligible person since 1.1.1964. Learned counsel appearing for him is not keen for any covered site and he has claimed that he is not still given the stall according to his seniority treating him to be senior since 1964. He will be treated as senior and accordingly his claim for grant of stall will be considered by Shri Chaturvedi in that light and suitable stall may be given to him. 14. So far as the other four persons mentioned at 196, 196A, 241 and 289 are concerned, Shri Chaturvedi may issue notice to them and get exact information regarding the nature of trade which they want to continue and on verification, Shri Chaturvedi may decide their actual seniority and their claims for change to permissible trade may be considered. If it is found that the trade for which they seek a change is permissible, they may exercise option for such change of trade and if they do not opt for such change, their claims should be elected. 15. So far as the claim of Madan Lal and Chander Lal whose names appear in paragraph 6.1 of the letter goes, Mr. Chaturvedi informs us that their I.A. Nos. 96 & 97 of 1997 were allowed by this court on 4.2.1998 on the supposition that they were under 10 per cent hardship quote fixed by Thareja Committee but actually it is not so. Thareja Committee recommendation did not cover these two persons in the category of hardship cases but there appears that there is some error which was got inserted in the I.As. soliciting decision from this Court in their favour. We, therefore, deem it fit to issue notice to these two persons in I.As. 96 & 97 of 1997. Thareja Committee recommendation did not cover these two persons in the category of hardship cases but there appears that there is some error which was got inserted in the I.As. soliciting decision from this Court in their favour. We, therefore, deem it fit to issue notice to these two persons in I.As. 96 & 97 of 1997. Shri Chaturvedi will furnish the addresses of those two persons within one week from today and the Registry will issue notice returnable on 22.1.1999 at 2.00 P.M calling upon them to show cause why the decision dated 4.2.1998 in I.As aforementioned treating them as hardship cases should not be recalled and I.As should not be dismissed. In view of these order Shri Chaturvedi will deal with the cases of these two persons in the light of our order to be passed after hearing them. 16. The suggestion in paragraph 7.1 in the letter is accepted after hearing in learned counsel for the parties. 17. So far as the question mentioned in paragraph 72 is concerned if Madan Mohan Gupta applies for change of trade and if change for suitable trade is granted to him, the his claim of allotment may be considered subject to his clearing all arrears. 18. So far as paragraph 7.3 of the letter is concerned, Mr. Chaturvedi submits that suitable notices to the 5 persons who on hardship cases are recommended by Thareja Committee will be issued informing them that they have to get clarification from this Court failing which their claims on hardship ground will stand rejected. Letter No. 7: 19. So far as the latter No. 7 is concerned, having heard learned counsel for the parties we deem it fit to direct that Mr. Chaturvedi may implement the 24.2.1995 passed by Thareja Committee treating Shri Pahalvan Singh is the senior from 12.6.1984 for allotment in the bazari site only. His proper allotment may be made in this connection. Shri Chaturvedi may hear the views of Shri Pahalvan Singh as well as N.D.M.C. Letter No. 8 and rest of the matters : 20. Adjourned to 22.1.1999 at 2.00 P.M. before this Bench.