ORDER 1. We have heard the counsel for the parties appearing before us today. We are informed that pursuant to the order of this Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi as well as NDMC have framed schemes for squatters/ hawkers. It is also stated that pursuant to the scheme, applications were made and the committees concerned finalised some of the applications. 2. It is further contended that some of the hawkers/squatters who were e granted tehbazari rights were either dislocated or removed for one reason or the other. In some cases possession was not given. Those persons who are entitled to settlement under the schemes as framed have a grievance that their matters/cases have remained pending and no order has been passed granting them alternative sites, etc. etc. 3. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of MCD informs us that in the meantime, in the year 2004 the National Policy on Hawkers has been formulated by the Government of India. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, has in principle agreed to implement the same. He, therefore, submits that whatever action will be taken in future will be based on the National Policy on Hawkers formulated in the year 2004. However, that will not affect the rights of those already granted valid licences under the scheme finalised by MCD. However, he states that in executing the National Policy, preference will be given to those squatters/hawkers eligible for allotment under the existing scheme based on their seniority and priority of claim. 4. We find that the National Policy envisages grant of tehbazari rights to persons not exceeding 2 to 2.5% of the population. Learned Additional Solicitor General tells us that this percentage has to be worked out on zonal basis, as there are twelve zones under MCD and may be about six to eight zones under NDMC. 5. We are also informed by some of the petitioners who are before us that a large number of applications were made for settlement of the tehbazari rights under the schemes as formulated by MCD and NDMC. But unfortunately, most of them have not been disposed of and only about three thousand and odd applications were decided by the committee concerned. The rest of them fall under Category IV under the MCD Scheme and their matters are still pending. 6. But unfortunately, most of them have not been disposed of and only about three thousand and odd applications were decided by the committee concerned. The rest of them fall under Category IV under the MCD Scheme and their matters are still pending. 6. We are also informed that under the schemes formulated by MCD and NDMC hawking and no-hawking zones have been demarcated and the hawkers/squatters will be located only in those zones which have been demarcated by NDMC and MCD as hawking zones in accordance with the priorities mentioned in the scheme. It is not disputed before us that only a few applications have so far been decided and it is not known as to what is the exact position as of date. Counsel for NDMC informs us that all applications received by NDMC have been decided and orders passed. 7. In the background of these facts, we call upon MCD and NDMC to file comprehensive statements stating: (i) whether necessary arrangements have been made so that the national policy formulated by the Central Government can be implemented i.e. whether the committees have been constituted, etc. etc.; (ii) how many applications for grant of licences were received by MCD and NDMC and how many of them have since been decided. How many applications still remain pending and why; (iii) in how many cases those who were granted squatting rights or tehbazari rights were subsequently dislocated, or possession of the site not given for any reason; (iv) how much time will it take for NDMC and MCD to dispose of the applications that may be pending; (v) how many IAs have been filed before this Court pursuant to the direction of this Court for grant of alternative sites or for grant of tehbazari rights or squatting rights. The affidavit shall also state the number of squatters/hawkers who can possibly be accommodated based on the calculation made under MCD and NDMC Schemes which have demarcated "hawking" and "no-hawking" zones. The affidavit shall be filed within six weeks. However, in the meantime nothing prevents MCD and NDMC from disposing of pending applications, if any. Contempt Petition (C) No. 67 of 2001 8. Counsel for the petitioners states that the contempt petition has become infructuous since squatters concerned have been given possession by MCD. Notice of contempt is, therefore, discharged. The affidavit shall be filed within six weeks. However, in the meantime nothing prevents MCD and NDMC from disposing of pending applications, if any. Contempt Petition (C) No. 67 of 2001 8. Counsel for the petitioners states that the contempt petition has become infructuous since squatters concerned have been given possession by MCD. Notice of contempt is, therefore, discharged. If the petitioners have any grievance about the location of the sites, it is open to them to make representation to the authorities concerned, who shall deal with such grievances in accordance with law. Contempt Petition (C) No. 506 of 2002 9. We have been taken through the orders passed by this Court on 6-11-20001, 1-12-20002, 2-12-20003 and the order of this Court passed on 9-8-2002. We have also been taken through the order of this Court dated 26-10-2004. A combined reading of the orders indicates that so far as Chandni Chowk area (Jain Mandir to Fathepuri) is concerned, the same has been declared to be a no-hawking zone. The grievance of the petitioners is I that there is some confusion in this regard. Chandni Chowk area is full of hawkers/squatters and it is impossible for the existing shopkeepers to carry on their business, and for the public to move freely in that area. 10. A submission was sought to be urged on behalf of some of the petitioners before us, that there are observations in the order of this Court which permit squatting/hawking on holidays, festivals, etc. We are not in a c position to decide that issue today and we shall consider this on the next date. 11. Counsel for MCD states that as of date no hawkers or squatters have been granted permission to do hawking or squatting in Chandni Chowk area and, therefore, if anyone is found hawking or squatting in this area, that is unauthorised. If any permission is shown, that may be a fabricated document or some document obtained illegally. Such licences must be ignored. 12. Counsel for Delhi Police is present and he takes note of all these facts. He states that if no permission has been granted to any squatter or hawker, the police will have no difficulty in removing anyone who is found hawking or squatting in Chandni Chowk area. 13. The difficulty of the police arises from the fact that some hawkers/squatters claim to be licensed hawkers and squatters. He states that if no permission has been granted to any squatter or hawker, the police will have no difficulty in removing anyone who is found hawking or squatting in Chandni Chowk area. 13. The difficulty of the police arises from the fact that some hawkers/squatters claim to be licensed hawkers and squatters. The position f has been made clear to the counsel appearing for Delhi Police. He states that the police will immediately take action to remove all hawkers and squatters from Chandni Chowk area, subject to further directions of this Court. 14. On the next date we shall consider the submission of the petitioners that in accordance with orders of this Court, squatters/hawkers are entitled to g carry on their business at least on holidays and festival days. We will consider this matter later and give suitable directions. 15. We, however, make it clear that the police authorities will act in accordance with the orders passed by this Court referred to earlier in this order, and remove all squatters and hawkers and not permit any hawker or squatter to carry on business in Chandni Chowk area. If we find that this order has been breached, we shall hold the police officials concerned responsible for the breach and punish them for contempt of court. 16. There are a number of IAs before us today. We pass the following general direction in all these IAs: Petitioner(s) in all the IAs will make sure that the opposite parties concerned have been served with the IAs, if not, they shall be served with the IAs/contempt petitions within a week. The opposite parties shall file their reply to the IA within a period of four weeks from the date on which the IA is served on' them, if not already served on the present counsel for MCD. The petitioners will have liberty to file rejoinder, if so advised, within two weeks thereafter. Let the matters come up after eight weeks. We will take the IAs one by one and dispose them of. The order dated 1-12-20002 in WP No. 1699 of 1987 is modified to the extent that instead of requiring the parties to serve a copy of the application to Mr Shiv Kumar, Amicus Curiae they are directed to circulate copy on the counsel for MCD. IAs....... (filed by Mr M.M. Kashyap, Advocate) may be registered. The order dated 1-12-20002 in WP No. 1699 of 1987 is modified to the extent that instead of requiring the parties to serve a copy of the application to Mr Shiv Kumar, Amicus Curiae they are directed to circulate copy on the counsel for MCD. IAs....... (filed by Mr M.M. Kashyap, Advocate) may be registered. Counsel will serve a copy of the application on counsel for MCD, whereafter, MCD will file its reply to the application within four weeks. Rejoinder, within two weeks thereafter. IA No. ... of 2005 in IA No. 394 in IA No. 356 in WP (C) No. 1699 of 1987 17. The applicants in this application are persons who were having shops near the Old Delhi Railway Station. They had to be shifted from there on account of construction of Delhi Metro. By resolution of the Standing Committee dated 7-7-2004 they were allotted alternative site in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi. This resolution has been ratified by the Municipal Council on 25-10-2004. However, in view of the order of this Court dated 9-8-2004 the Municipal Corporation has not handed over the possession of the lands in question to the applicants. 18. The petitioners in IA No. 394, namely, Ram Swaroop and others have objected on the ground that they held licences to hold tehbazari in Lajpat Nagar area but they have been shifted on account of bomb blast. They have claimed that they should be allotted alternative sites for their business. We will consider what relief should be granted to petitioners, Ram Swaroop and• others. But we find no reason why Nand Kishor and Ashok Kumar, the applicants should not be given possession of the lands allotted to them. We, therefore, permit the Municipal Corporation to issue necessary orders to hand over possession of lands allotted to them. So far as the case of the petit' oners in IA No. 394 is concerned, we will later consider directing the Municipal Corporation to give alternative sites to them if any alternative site is available. 19. However, the applicants in IA No. 394 are permitted to assist the Municipal Authorities to locate possible available sites in the areas of their choice, and if possible, the Municipal Corporation may take appropriate steps in accordance with law to allot them alternative sites notwithstanding the pendency of their application. 20. List the matters on 28-10-2005. Court Masters,