MOOT COURT PROPOSITION Brij Mohan Katyal, a 56 year old Cobler

(Petitioner), living in Delhi suburb, has been deprived of his

fundamental right to livelihood. The facts of the case are that

because of impugned order of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Now

New Delhi Municipal Corporation-Respondents) whereby the NDMC

has forcibly told the petitioner to wind up his business which he was

carrying for more than 40 years. He was mending the shoes just near

the pavement- fencing of the Indian Law Institute which is opposite

to Gate F of Supreme Court of India, Bagwandas Road, in an open

space and occupying a space of 3’ x 2’ ft only without making any

hindrance to pavement for general public. Aggrieved by the

impugned order he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court

against such impugned order of NDMC contesting his infringement

of right to work and livelihood. The petitioner contested that he was

working and earning at said space since 40 years which was

allocated him under proper permission of Delhi Municipal

Corporation by submitting registration fees and also the petitioner

has been giving monthly rent of Rs. 250/- towards municipal

corporation of which he is having proper receipts. The Respondents

in the case contended that such action was warranted under Swach

Bharat Mission of GOI and to protect Environment around said

location and that is why the petitioner was asked to relocate his
business at identified alternate space which is Sunheri lane, Tilak

Marg, New Delhi and thus which doesn’t tantamount to any violation

of right to livelihood of petitioner. The petitioner prayed before the

High Court that since he was working for nearly 40 years because of

which he has earned set clientele and goodwill because of rush of

contenders and general public to Courts vis a vis to other nearby

institutions, which will not be seen at alternate location. It was

contending by Respondents that there is great hazard to

surrounding environment and the petitioner is not one who has

occupied the pavement but there are almost 230 such pavement

vendors including chai walas , juice walas, toys walas; polish wala’s

and newspaper walas around the vicinity of baghwandas road. It was

alleged that on daily basis the wastage and garbage collection vans

collect 70 to 90 quintals of wastage and litter material, hence implies

huge danger to surrounding environment. The respondents also

contended that there is immediate need to take action by Disaster

Management Authority of India, New Delhi for mitigation and

prevention of COVID-19 infections by stopping those vendors not to

earn their livelihood until COVID-19 pandemic is over. It is reported

in newspaper namely ‘Daily Horizons’ that one of the reasons why

few judges, advocates and other employees of Supreme Court, High

Courts, ILI and ISIL and many other officials of other institutions
succumbed to COVID-19 is because many such employees who go

to have refreshment and other such amenities have contracted the

virus. Therefore, there is urgent need to stop them. Accordingly,

DMAI passed an order no: 123/21 dated 15th March, 2021 restricting

the vendors to carry on their business. The Delhi High Court passed

the order directing petitioner to relocate his business to proposed

alternate site within 20 days from the date of order and also directed

the respondent Municipal Corporation to construct a concrete shop

(of 6’ x 6’ ft area) for petitioner at the alternate site which NDMC has

already started by now. Aggrieved by the judgement dated 29th April

,2023 of the High Court, the petitioner filed the appeal before Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

1.ISSUES FRAMED.

1 Whether Relocation of petitioner amount to violation of Right to

Livelihood under Article -21 of Indian constitution?

2. Whether the impugned orders passed by NDMC and DMAI were

maintainable under Article 19 (1) (g) of Indian Constitution or not?

. 3. Whether the writ petition filed for appeal before SC by petitioner

is maintainable or not?

2.SUMMARY ARGUMENTS.

1.Relocation of petitioner amounts to violation of Right to Livelihood

under Article -21 of Indian constitution.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the relocation

of his business of the petitioner amounts to violation of his

fundamental right to livelihood under the Article 21 of Indian

constitution If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of

the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his

right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood .In this case

relocation is not just fair and reasonable because the appellant has been

doing bussiness at the said place since 40 years with proper permission

from the NDMC &has earned the good clientele and goodwill.The right to

life is fundamental to our very existence, without which we cannot live as

human beings and includes all those aspects of life, which make a man’s

life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is the only Article in the

Constitution that has received the broadest possible interpretation. Thus,

the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements for a person from

the core concept of the right to life.

2.The impugned orders passed by NDMC and DMAI were not

maintainable under Article 19 (1) (g) of Indian Constitution.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the impunged orders

passed by the NDMC & DMAI are not maintainable under Article

19(1)(g)because “This article guarantees any citizen of India to practice

any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business “the

appellant has been doing business at the said place since 40 years with
the proper permission from NDMC and without causing any hindrance to

the pavement for the general public.NDMC has forcibly told the petitioner

to wind up his business which is the violation of his Fundamental Right to

trade and commerce under article 19 (1)( g ) of the Indian constitution.

3.Writ Petition filed for appeal before SC by petitioner is

maintainable.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the appeal is valid

Under article 132 of the constitution as it raises substantial questions of

law and fundamental rights, including the violation of the right to livelihood

under Article 21 and the restriction of business under Article 19 (1) (g) of

the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and

authority to hear and decide on such matters.

3.ADVANCED ARGUMENTS.

Issue 1 :

1.Relocation of petitioner amounts to Violation of Right to Livelihood

under Article 21 of Indian Constitution: It is humbly submitted that to

this court that the petitioner, Brij Mohan Katyal, has been earning his

livelihood by running a cobbler business in the said location for over 40

years without causing any hindrance to pavement for the general public

Article 21 reads as:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except

according to procedure established by law.”

The "Right to Livelihood” is not explicitly mentioned under Article

21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 primarily guarantees the

“Right to Life and Personal Liberty.” However, the Indian judiciary

has interpreted this right broadly to include the right to livelihood as

an integral part of the right to life. This interpretation has been

upheld in various Supreme Court judgments, recognizing that the

right to livelihood is essential for a dignified life.

We believe that the relocation of the petitioner's business amounts to a

violation of his fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Indian

Constitution.

(A)Case Law: Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation1.

“The Supreme Court recognized the Right to Livelihood as an

integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Court held that

depriving someone of their livelihood without following a fair

procedure would violate their fundamental rights.”

2. He has built a set clientele and goodwill due to the rush of contenders

and general public to the courts and other nearby institutions. This

clientele and goodwill cannot be easily replicated at the proposed

alternate site. Relocating the petitioner's business would not only disrupt

his livelihood but also adversely affect his economic stability .

1.Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
(B)Case Laws: State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Indian Hotel &

Retaurants Assn.& …2

The Supreme Court emphasized that economic rights and the right

to carry on a trade or business are an integral part of the right to life

and personal liberty under Article 21. Any restriction or deprivation

of these rights must be reasonable and in the public interest.

His business has provided him with a means to sustain himself and his

family. By forcibly asking him to wind up his business and relocate it to a

different location, the Delhi Municipal Corporation has infringed upon his

fundamental right to livelihood. The respondent's contention that the

relocation is warranted under the Swach Bharat Mission and to protect the

environment is not valid in this case .

(C)M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath,3: The Supreme Court, in this case,

reiterated the need to balance the right to carry on trade and

business with environmental protection.

(D)Cooverjee B. Bharucha Vs Excise commissioner,4 observed that,

if there is clash between environmental protection and right to

freedom of trade and occupation, the courts have to balance

environmental interests with the fundamental rights to carry on any

occupations.

3. The petitioner's business did not create any hindrance to the general

public on the pavement, as it occupied a small space of 3' x 2' ft.

Additionally, the petitioner has been paying monthly rent to the municipal

corporation and has proper receipts to prove it. Hence, he has been

carrying out his business legally and with permission all these years.

4.Furthermore, the petitioner has established a set clientele and goodwill

in the area due to the rush of contenders and the general public to the

nearby courts. Relocating his business to a different location will directly

impact his right to earn a livelihood and would result in the loss of this

clientele and goodwill. This would directly impact his right to earn a

livelihood and violate his fundamental right to livelihood under article 21

of the constitution.

(E)Case law: Adhiban v. Deputy Director of School Education (2009):

This case emphasized that the Right to Livelihood is a fundamental

right and any government action that threatens a person’s livelihood

must be justified.

ISSUE: 2

Impugned orders of NDMC and DMAI not maintainable under Article

19 (1) (g) of Indian Constitution:

1. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble court that the impugned orders

passed by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation and the Disaster

Management Authority of India (DMAI) violates the fundamental

 right of the the petitioner under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Indian

constitution.

Article 19 (1)(g): provides for the fundamental right of the citizens

to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or

business.

2.The petitioner contends that the NDMC has forcibly told him to wind

up his business which he was carrying since 40 years without giving

him any prior notice under the authority of law .

(F)Nagendra Yadav Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council

Hon’ble supreme court of India held that the , The street vendors

(protection of livelihood and Regulation of street vending Act

2014) under section 3 which says “Survey of street vendors and

protection from eviction or relocation.”

(1) The Town Vending Committee shall, within such period and in

such manner as may be specified in the scheme, conduct a survey

of all existing street vendors, within the area under its jurisdiction,

and subsequent survey shall be carried out at least once in every

five years.

(2) The Town Vending Committee shall ensure that all existing

street vendors, identified in the survey, are accommodated in the

vending zones subject to a norm conforming to two and half per

cent. Of the population of the ward or zone or town or city, as the

 case may be, in accordance with the plan for street vending and

the holding capacity of the vending zones.

(3) No street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be,

relocated till the survey specified under sub-section (1) has been

completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street

vendors.

Therefore the impugned order passed by the NDMC (respondent) is

not just ,fair and reasonable and is subject to contention.

(G)Oliga tills case (pavement dwellers case)

It was held that The right to carry on trade or business mentioned in

Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution, on street pavements, if properly

regulated cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant

exclusively for passing or re-passing and for no other use. Proper

regulation is, however, a necessary condition as otherwise the very

object of laying out roads-to facilitate traffic--may be defeated.

Allowing the right to trade with- out appropriate control is likely to

lead to unhealthy competition and quarrel between traders and

travelling public and sometimes amongst the traders themselves

resulting in chaos. The right is subject to reasonable restrictions

under clause (6) of Article.

3.further it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that impugned

order by the NDMC and DMAI is against the Article 19 (1)(g) as the
petitioner has been carrying his business at the said place for more than

40 years without creating any hindrance to the general public, furthermore

he has earned the clientele and goodwill which won’t be possible for him

to earn at this point of age at other place which will ultimately lead to him

to the loss of his livelihood which would make him and his family suffer

and can lead them to death as they would be without any means to survive

and is ultimate violation of Right to life under article 21 and Right to Carry

trade and bussiness and trade under article 19 (1)(g) .

(H)Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. (1950)

This case can be cited to argue that the State’s power to regulate trade or

business under Article 19(6) Should not be used to impose unreasonable

restrictions.

(I)Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of karela (1986)

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to carry on a

trade or business is subject to Reasonable restrictions, and such

restrictions should not be arbitrary.

(J)Bombay Hawkers union vd BMC &ors (1985)

The hawkers have a right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of

India. This right however is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article

19(6) if properly regulated the small traders can considerably add to the

convenience and comfort of the general public, by making available

ordinary articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price,the court

also emphasized on National policy on street vendors in which Section 10

explains,”if properly regulated according to the exigency of the

circumstances, the small traders on the side walks can considerably add

to the comfort and convenience of the general public, by making available

ordinary articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. An

ordinary person, not very affluent, while hurrying towards his home after

a day’s work can pick up these articles without going out of his way to find

a regular market. The right to carry on trade or business mentioned in

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, on street pavements, if properly

regulated cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant

exclusively for passing or re-passing and no other use.

4.it is humbly submitted before the court that the impunged order passed

by DMAI is not maintainable as it is based on the report news published

in the newspaper “the horizon” which is not a report from the authentic

government body.DMAI can’t merely relay on that news and from the facts

of the case the respodent is themselves saying that order should be

passed by the DMAI which will stop these vendors from earning their

livelihood DMAI under the provisions of Disaster management Act can’t

pass any impunged order which will infringe the Fundamental rights of the

people.

While the prevention of COVID-19 infections is a crucial issue , it should

not be used as a justification to completely deprive individuals of their right

to earn a livelihood under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution. Than

the order should be applicable to other institutions as well which are with

the vicinity of bhagwan das road Delhi.

(K)Sodan Singh Case

In Sodan Singh (supra) the petitioners, as hawkers, were carrying
on business by squatting on the pavements of Delhi and New Delhi
and those squatters alleged that they were allowed by the
Municipality to carry on such business on payment of charges
described as Tehbazari. As the Municipal Authority subsequently
refused to permit them to continue their business, that action of the
municipality according to those petitioners, interfered with their
fundamental right to carry on business under Articles 19(1)(g) and
21 of the Constitution of India.

The correctness of the decision in Pyare Lal (supra) was also

doubted. As such the matter was placed before the Constitution
Bench.

In Sodan Singh (supra) there was a paradigm shift by the Court on

the interpretation of fundamental right of a hawker or a squatter
under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on business. Various judgments of
Supreme Court were considered Supreme Court in Sodan Singh
(supra) took a very broad view of a citizens right under Article
19(1)(g) following its decisions in the case of Fertilizer Corporation
Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. :
(1981) 1 SCC 568 and also the decision of this Court in K.
Rajendran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. : (1982) 2
SCC 273 and the decision of this Court in Bombay Hawkers’ Union
and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. : (1985) 3
SCC 528 and the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and
Ors. : (1985) 3 SCC 545.

Supreme Court in Sodan Singh (supra) came to the conclusion

that the hawkers and SQUATTERS HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS ON THE PUBLIC STREET,
but the same should be regulated . It was further held by Justice
Sharma (as His Lordship then was) that the right of a hawker to
transact business, while going from place to place, is recognized in
India for a long period. Of course such right is subject to regulation
since public streets demand its use by the public and the streets are
not meant to facilitate some citizens to carry on any private
business.

However, such right of hawking for carrying on business on the

street cannot be denied if they are properly regulated. The learned
Judge made it very clear that the said right is subject to reasonable
restrictions under Clause (6) of Article 19. The learne d Judge
relying on the ratio in Saghir Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P.
and Ors. : AIR 1954 SC 728 held that streets in India are vested in
the municipality and they have to be used by the municipalities as
trustees. The learned Judge while delivering the judgment
observed:

“We as a court in a welfare State do realise the hardship to which

many of the petitioners may be exposed if they are prevented from
carrying on the business. The only solution for this is the adoption
of the policy of full employment, which even according to leading
economists like Keynes will alleviate the problems of the
unemployed to some extent. But as students of economics we also
realise that every human activity has the ‘optimum point’ beyond
which it becomes wholly unproductive.

It is for the government to take reasonable steps to prevent

movement of people from rural areas to urban areas. That can be
done by the development of urban centres in rural areas removed
from each other at least by one hundred miles. This is more a
matter of executive policy than for judicial fiat. We hope and trust
that in administering the laws in force the authorities will keep in
view humane considerations….”

His Lordship held,

“in a nutshell the guarantee takes into its fold any activity
carried on by a citizen of India to earn his living. The activity of
course must be legitimate and not anti- social like gambling,
trafficking in women and the like.”

The learned Judge referred to the decision in Bombay Hawkers’

Union (supra) and also to the decision of Supreme Court
in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC
101 and highlighted the importance of framing regulations to
regulate hawking business

The learned Judge in his concurring judgment made a very

pertinent observation after comparing the position of street trading
in India with that prevailing in other countries and noted that even
in England where there is complete social security and the
citizens are not driven to the streets to make out a living out of
poverty and sheer unemployment, street trading is recognized .

Considering that an alarming percentage of population in our

country lives below poverty line, the learned Judge held that when
the citizens by gathering meagre resources try to employ
themselves as hawkers and street traders, they cannot be
subjected to a deprivation on the pretext that they have no right.

The petitioner is willing to comply with any necessary safety measures

and guidelines put forth by the government to prevent the spread of

COVID-19. However, completely stopping his business and forcing him to

relocate without any valid reason related to the pandemic is arbitrary and

unreasonable.

(L)New Delhi Municipal Council v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals

(2000): The Supreme Court declared that the impugned orders passed by

NDMC (New Delhi Municipal Council) and DMAI (Delhi Medical

Association of India) were not maintainable under Article 19 (1) (g) of the

Indian Constitution. The court emphasized that the freedom to practice

any profession, trade, or business under Article 19 (1) (g) includes the

right to carry on business without unnecessary interference or restriction

by the State.
(M)In Gainda Ram v. MCD(2010)

In Gainda Ram v. MCD, the Supreme Court observed that the

fundamental right of hawkers, just because they are poor and

unorganized cannot be left in a state of limbo nor it can leave completely

to be decided by the varying standards of a scheme which changes from

time to time under the orders of the Court.

(N)Manushi sanghatan vs Delhi municipal authority 2009

Hon’ble court held that Hawkers also serve a public need of less affluent

section of our population and cannot be wished away. Rather than

banishing them it is necessary to ensure that the business of hawking is

regulated and legitimized to ensure optimum utilization of public spaces.

All over the world public spaces are utilized by permitting hawking in a

regulated and disciplined manner. Such regulation of hawking is

eminently in public interest as it will also generate revenue for the State.

The consideration for use of public space by hawkers would ensure that

the amount which lines the private pockets for permitting hawking, finds

its way into the State revenue.

Furthermore subject to not causing nuisance, obstruction and

encroachment, even a small hawker who can not afford the

astronomically prized commercial space in Delhi is entitled to carry

out his business with dignity and without harassment.‖

(M)Bhola Ram Patel vs New Delhi municipal counsel.(2016)

 street pavements if properly regulated cannot be denied on the

ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-

passing and for no other use.In this case emphasize was given to

the Street vendors (protection of livelihood and Regulation of street

vendor Act)2014 that under the provisions of the said act Hawking

and non-Hawking areas should be identified by the authorities which

will stop states arbitrary action to stop vendors from carrying their

respective bussiness.

ISSUES :3

Maintainability of the writ petition filed for appeal before the

Supreme Court:

1.It is submitted before the hon’ble court that the petitioner has filed an

appeal under Article 136 and Article 132 respectively before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court against the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

Special Leave Petition is not an appeal in itself, but a petition filed for an

appeal, and the Supreme Court grants the “Leave” to convert the petition

into an “Appeal”.

Grounds for filing Special leave petition under Article 136

2.It is very commonly known that against any judgment, an appeal can lie

by the aggrieved party to a superior court; however, a condition of appeal

is such that it can be made in a case where a substantial question of law

is involved or gross injustice has been observed.

3.A purely administrative or executive order or ruling cannot be a matter

of appeal; the judgment, decree or order against which an appeal is made

must possess some judicial character.

So, SLP provides the aggrieved party special permission to be heard in

the Supreme Court in an appeal against any judgment or order of any

Court or tribunal in India.

Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002): This case underscores that

the Supreme Court can entertain a writ petition if there’s a substantial

question of law to be considered. It further supports the maintainability of

writ petitions.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ratanlal & Ors. (2013): This case

clarifies that the Supreme Court may consider writ petitions if there is a

substantial question of law or a significant legal issue. It reinforces the

maintainability of writ petitions.

4.

The respondent may argue that the writ petition is not maintainable.

However, the appeal is valid as it raises substantial questions of law and

fundamental rights, including the violation of the right to livelihood under

Article 21 and the restriction of business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the

Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and authority

to hear and decide on such matters. In conclusion, the petitioner’s right to

livelihood has been violated by the relocation order of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation. The impugned orders passed by NDMC and DMAI are not

maintainable under the Indian Constitution. The writ petition filed for

appeal under Article 136 and 132 before the Supreme Court is valid. The

petitioner deserves justice and should be allowed to continue his business

at the original location or be provided with adequate compensation and

support to establish his business at the proposed alternate site.

Violation of Fundamental Rights: Brij Mohan Katyal claims that his

fundamental right to livelihood, protected under Article 21 of the

Indian Constitution, has been violated. This raises a substantial

legal issue and is a strong argument in favor of maintainability.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ratanlal & Ors. (2013): This

case clarifies that the Supreme Court may consider writ petitions if

there is a substantial question of law or a significant legal issue. It

reinforces the maintainability of writ petitions.

Alternative Arrangements: The petitioner has raised concerns about

his set clientele and goodwill, which may be adversely affected by

relocation.He may not be able to earn his livelihood at the alternate

place which will render him jobless which will ultimately infringe his

fundamental rights.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India

(2003):This case highlighted that government policies must respect

fundamental rights and cannot unduly restrict them. It reinforces the

 argument that environmental concerns and public health measures

must be balanced with individual rights.

Gross Injustice: the orders were not passed under the due authority

of law ,these were merely based on some shemes ( Swach Bharat

mission) or by a vague survey done by some newspaper ,there is

no statutory backing to the orders .

He Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. V. Regional

Transport Authority, Aurangabad ( 1960.

It was held in the case that any authority which passes order right

or wrong is could not offend the fundamental right.

(B) Maintainable under Article 132

Article 132: Supreme court’s Appellate Jurisdiction over appeals from high

courts in certain cases i.e., constitutional matters

According to Article 132 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, it gives power

for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any High Court “judgement,

decree, or final order”, where case is related to any criminal matter, civil

matter, or any other matter and if it is certified by the High Court that the

case involves a substantial question of interpretation of the law related to

Constitution and Where such a certificate is given by the high court itself.

Any party on such grounds can appeal in supreme court on ground that in

matter of substantial question, case has been decided.

 Keshav Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay

(1953), it was concluded that an appeal under Article 132 can only

be filed against the final judgement of the High Court.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the aforesaid

mentioned case falls under the purview of Article 132

The respondent may argue that the writ petition is not maintainable.

However, the appeal is valid as it raises substantial questions of law and

fundamental rights, including the violation of the right to livelihood under

Article 21 and the restriction of business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the

Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and authority

to hear and decide on such matters. In conclusion, the petitioner’s right to

livelihood has been violated by the relocation order of the Delhi Municipal

Corporation. The impugned orders passed by NDMC and DMAI are not

maintainable under the Indian Constitution. The writ petition filed for

appeal under Article 136 and 132 before the Supreme Court is valid. The

petitioner deserves justice and should be allowed to continue his business

at the original location or be provided with adequate compensation and

support to establish his business at the proposed alternate site.

Violation of Fundamental Rights: Brij Mohan Katyal claims that his

fundamental right to livelihood, protected under Article 21 of the Indian

Constitution, has been violated. This raises a substantial legal issue and

is a strong argument in favor of maintainability.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003):This

case highlighted that government policies must respect fundamental

rights and cannot unduly restrict them. It reinforces the argument that

environmental concerns and public health measures must be balanced

with individual rights.

PRAYER

PRAYER

Now finally, it is humbly prayed to the Hon’ble Supreme court that

in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced

and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to find and

declare that:

1.That relocation of Petitioner/appellant amounts to violation of

Right to Livelihood under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

2. That the impugned orders passed by NDMC and DMAI were

not maintainable under Article 19 (1) (g) of Indian Constitution.

3. That the appeal filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

by petitioner/appellant is maintainable.

4. That the appellant has suffered by the loss of work due to the

act of the respondents therefore, compensation of Rs 2 lakh be

awarded to the appellant.

5. That the respondents be restrained from carrying any sort of

interference with regard to the business of the appellant at the

pavement-fencing of the Indian Law Institute which is opposite

to the Gate F of the Supreme Court of India ,Bagwandas Road

New Delhi.

6. That the costs of litigation be also awarded to the appellant by

way of Rs 1 lakh.
And/or, pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in

the ends of justice,equity and good conscience. All of which is

respectfully submitted.