{"id":108160,"date":"2009-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-04-23T18:24:04","modified_gmt":"2017-04-23T12:54:04","slug":"gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                                    REPORTABLE\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n           I.A.No. 1 in I.A. No. 407 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\nPATRI VYAPAR MANDAL DELHI (REGD)                     ......Petitioner(s)\n\n                               VERSUS\n\nM.C.D. TOWN HALL & ORS.                              ......Respondent(s)\n\n                                WITH\n\nI.A.No.1 & C.P.(C) No. 170\/2007 in I.A. No. 394 in I.A. No. 356 in WP(C)\n                            No. 1699\/1987\n\n CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.323\/2007 in WP(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                                WITH\n\n                 I.A. No. 366 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                 I.A. No. 367 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n            CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 126\/2001\n\n                 I.A. No. 361 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n              I.A. Nos. 372-373 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                 I.A. No. 389 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                 I.A. No. 392 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                                WITH\n\n                         W.P.(C) No. 535\/2001\n\n\n\n                              Page 1 of 20\n                        W.P.(C) No. 240\/2004\n\n             I.A. Nos. 397-398 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n        I.A. No. 399 in I.A. No. 394 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                I.A. Nos. 1-2 in W.P.(C) No. 100\/2002\n\nI.A.No....\/2005 in I.A.No. 394 in I.A.No. 356 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\nI.A.No....\/2005 in I.A.No. 394 in I.A.No. 356 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                I.A. No.400 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                                WITH\n\n           I.A. No.401 in I.A. No. 396 in C.P. No. 506\/2002\n\n                                WITH\n\n                   I.A. No..... in C.P. No. 506\/2002\n\n                I.A. No.402 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                                WITH\n\n                        W.P.(C) No. 414\/2006\n\n                                WITH\n\n                I.A. No.403 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                                WITH\n\n                I.A. No.404 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                                WITH\n\n                I.A. No.406 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n\n\n                             Page 2 of 20\n                                  WITH\n\n               I.A. Nos.408-409 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                  I.A. No.410 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                                  WITH\n\n   CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.183 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n                                  WITH\n\n      C.P. (C) No.......(D. No.4361\/2009) in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987\n\n\n                                 ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1. By this common order we propose to dispose of various applications<\/p>\n
   filed by the parties hereto including the one which has been filed by the<\/p>\n
   Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short the `MCD’).<\/p>\n
2. Delhi being the capital of India has many peculiar problems. One of the<\/p>\n
   problems is naturally its population which has increased manifold<\/p>\n
   obviously due to influx of people from various regions and States<\/p>\n
   looking for new openings and avocations. Space availability in Delhi is<\/p>\n
   very limited and within that limited space available at its disposal the<\/p>\n
   municipalities namely the MCD and the New Delhi Municipal<\/p>\n
                                Page 3 of 20<\/span>
\n   Corporation (in short the `NDMC’) have to manage all their activities<\/p>\n
   including functioning of the markets at different places.<\/p>\n
3. Limited space available for effective functioning of markets including<\/p>\n
   accommodation available for the squatters and hawkers to carry on their<\/p>\n
   small business has been receiving attention of this Court for quite a long<\/p>\n
   time. In that regard, several orders have been passed by this Court from<\/p>\n
   time to time. Pursuant to such orders of this Court the MCD as well as<\/p>\n
   the NDMC have framed Schemes for running of the business by the<\/p>\n
   squatters\/hawkers. In response to the Schemes, nearly 85,000 people<\/p>\n
   applied for allotment of spaces within the MCD area and about 10,000<\/p>\n
   people applied for such allotment within the NDMC area seeking<\/p>\n
   settlement of the tehbazari rights under the Schemes as formulated by the<\/p>\n
   MCD and the NDMC. Due to want of space only about three thousand<\/p>\n
   of such applicants out of the aforesaid applications received could be<\/p>\n
   allotted spaces by the concerned authorities.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4. So acute was the dissatisfaction with the process followed by municipal<\/p>\n
   authorities that several complaints were filed in the Court raising<\/p>\n
   numerous objections against the manner in which the MCD tried to<\/p>\n
   implement the Schemes.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                 Page 4 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
5. Under the Schemes formulated by the MCD and the NDMC hawking<\/p>\n
   and non-hawking areas have been demarcated and the hawkers\/squatters<\/p>\n
   were to be located only in demarcated hawking zones in accordance with<\/p>\n
   the priorities mentioned in the Schemes.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. In the last few years a clearance operation was being carried out for the<\/p>\n
   purposes of widening roads and decongesting crowded areas which<\/p>\n
   affected a large proportion of genuine vendors who were either removed<\/p>\n
   or dislocated for one reason or the other. In some cases possession was<\/p>\n
   not given and in some other cases those persons, who were entitled to<\/p>\n
   settlement under the Schemes have a grievance that their matters<\/p>\n
   remained pending and no orders have been passed granting them relief.<\/p>\n
   Consequent thereupon, a large number of applications were filed by the<\/p>\n
   concerned authorities and aggrieved parties in which general directions<\/p>\n
   were issued by this Court from time to time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7. In the meantime, a Scheme called the “National Policy on Urban Street<\/p>\n
   Vendors” (for short the `NPSV\/Scheme’) was formulated by the<\/p>\n
   Government of India in the year 2004 which the MCD has agreed to<\/p>\n
                                Page 5 of 20<\/span>
\n   implement in principle.     In accordance with the said Scheme, Ward<\/p>\n
   Vending Committees have been constituted in all the 134 Wards of the<\/p>\n
   MCD. These committees were charged with the duties of identifying the<\/p>\n
   sites, declaring hawking and non-hawking zones in consultation with<\/p>\n
   various stakeholders like Vendors\/Trader’s Associations, Resident<\/p>\n
   Welfare Associations, Traffic Police etc. in accordance with the relevant<\/p>\n
   Rules. In addition to this, Zonal Vending Committees have also been<\/p>\n
   constituted in all the 12 Zones.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8. According to the NPSV the total vending sites would not exceed 2.5% of<\/p>\n
   the total population of that particular Ward\/Zone based on the Census<\/p>\n
   2001 which is consistent with the policy framed for the purpose and<\/p>\n
   about 3 lakh hawkers\/squatters could be accommodated including<\/p>\n
   existing tehbazari\/vending sites. It was proposed in the Scheme that the<\/p>\n
   rights of those hawkers\/squatters already granted valid licenses under the<\/p>\n
   Schemes finalized by the MCD would not be affected and that whatever<\/p>\n
   action could be taken in the near future would be based in terms of the<\/p>\n
   Scheme. It was decided that in executing the Scheme preference would<\/p>\n
   be given to those squatters\/hawkers eligible for allotment under the<\/p>\n
   existing scheme based on their seniority and priority of claim.<\/p>\n
                                 Page 6 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
9. When the matter came up before this Court on 06.02.2007, all aspects of<\/p>\n
   the NPSV were fully discussed. Certain suggestions were made in the<\/p>\n
   Court by the various parties which the Court found acceptable and in that<\/p>\n
   regard directions were issued to the MCD to consider whether those<\/p>\n
   suggestions could be incorporated in the Scheme. The MCD found the<\/p>\n
   suggestions acceptable and has submitted a Scheme incorporating those<\/p>\n
   suggestions.      Now     the     Scheme       envisages   identification   of<\/p>\n
   squatting\/vending areas by the Ward Vending Committees which was to<\/p>\n
   be approved by the Zonal Vending Committees which is also empowered<\/p>\n
   to make necessary changes and make allotments accordingly.<\/p>\n
10. In the said order dated 06.02.2007 reference was made to the fact that the<\/p>\n
   tehbazari\/vending sites would remain the property of the MCD.<\/p>\n
   However, mutation in case of death or permanent insanity of the allottee<\/p>\n
   would be allowed. It was provided that transfer\/mutation in the event of<\/p>\n
   change of hands or exchange would be permissible subject to the charges<\/p>\n
   as approved by the MCD from time to time. It was also provided that<\/p>\n
   tehbazari\/vending sites would measure 6 ft. x 4 ft. and open to sky and<\/p>\n
   that no permanent structure would be allowed to be raised. It was also<\/p>\n
   held that if it is found that any change or alteration in structure has been<\/p>\n
   made by the allottee, his licence would be cancelled. It was ordered that<\/p>\n
                                   Page 7 of 20<\/span>
\n   all the existing allottees as per the old Schemes would continue and only<\/p>\n
   thereafter, the cases of others would be considered in accordance with<\/p>\n
   the preference as provided in the said sub-paragraph but that would not<\/p>\n
   preclude the shifting of an allottee from one site to another consistent<\/p>\n
   with the norms of the NPSV which provided that the eviction should be<\/p>\n
   avoided wherever feasible unless there is clear and urgent public need of<\/p>\n
   the land in question.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. Broad guidelines were issued by this Court in the said order as to what<\/p>\n
   would be the further conditions to be incorporated in the Scheme which<\/p>\n
   were so incorporated. However, the said Scheme proposed by the MCD<\/p>\n
   was not found to be satisfactory by some of the parties due to various<\/p>\n
   reasons due to which objections were raised in respect of some of the<\/p>\n
   clauses in the said Scheme. This Court considered the said objections<\/p>\n
   and after detailed discussion and subject to certain modifications as<\/p>\n
   outlined in the order passed by the Court, the Scheme submitted by the<\/p>\n
   MCD in regard to the tehbazari\/vending sites was approved.<\/p>\n
12. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Self<\/p>\n
   Employed Women Association (SEWA) put forward a strong claim for<\/p>\n
   establishment of weekly markets in various areas. This Court heard the<\/p>\n
                                Page 8 of 20<\/span>
\n   said suggestions very carefully and after full deliberation held that the<\/p>\n
   Court cannot issue direction to declare weekly market in a particular area<\/p>\n
   for such matter is to be exclusively considered by the MCD. So far as<\/p>\n
   the suggestion for giving preference to women vendors in the allotment<\/p>\n
   of tehbazari\/vending sites is concerned, it was held that the same is again<\/p>\n
   a matter of policy and, therefore, it was observed that in planning<\/p>\n
   markets in the city, the MCD may consider whether some space would<\/p>\n
   be made available to women vendors and whether they may be allotted<\/p>\n
   tehbazari\/vending sites adjacent to each other in a Block.<\/p>\n
13. A further submission was made before the Court that the Schemes which<\/p>\n
   have been approved by the Court should be subject to such Act or Rules<\/p>\n
   that may be formulated in consonance with the NPSV. The Court in that<\/p>\n
   regard made it clear that it had only approved the Schemes as framed by<\/p>\n
   the MCD and the NDMC and that if the Legislature intervenes and<\/p>\n
   frames another Scheme or Regulation governing such Scheme that would<\/p>\n
   certainly supersede the Schemes formulated by the MCD for it is well<\/p>\n
   settled that any administrative action is always subject to such law that<\/p>\n
   may be framed by the competent Legislature. It was observed by the<\/p>\n
   Court while passing the said order that since the NPSV have been<\/p>\n
   formulated, the concerned authorities would have due regard to it in<\/p>\n
                                 Page 9 of 20<\/span>
\n   regulating tehbazari\/vending sites etc. In the orders subsequent thereto<\/p>\n
   this Court desired that the MCD and the NDMC would submit a separate<\/p>\n
   status report along with charts in regard to the implementation of the<\/p>\n
   Schemes not only in general but also with reference to the pending<\/p>\n
   applications.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed, the MCD filed a detailed affidavit<\/p>\n
   on 19.04.2008 giving the said status report regarding the implementation<\/p>\n
   and progress of the new Scheme. The MCD also filed an application<\/p>\n
   dated 09.05.2008 seeking appropriate directions from this Court in<\/p>\n
   regard to certain difficulties being faced by them in implementing the<\/p>\n
   Scheme. In the said application four principal difficulties have been<\/p>\n
   pointed out. The first issue which is raised is that the Government of<\/p>\n
   India has issued an Ordinance in 2007 which was later converted into an<\/p>\n
   Act known as Delhi Laws Special Provisions Act, 2007 (for short the<\/p>\n
   `Delhi Act’) which restrains removal action inter alia against<\/p>\n
   unauthorized squatters\/vendors up to 31.12.2008. It was stated that the<\/p>\n
   applicability of the Delhi Act has been extended for another one year and<\/p>\n
   an appropriate legislation in that regard has been passed by the<\/p>\n
   Parliament.\n<\/p>\n
                                Page 10 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
15. In view of the aforesaid position it is pointed out that a problem is being<\/p>\n
   created for settlement of eligible squatters as some of the sites have been<\/p>\n
   occupied by unauthorized vendors who are entitled to protection under<\/p>\n
   the provisions of the Delhi Act. It is next pointed out that for settlement<\/p>\n
   of squatters\/street vendors, there is hardly any footpath which has a<\/p>\n
   width of 9 ft. providing 5 ft. for the pedestrians and 4 ft. for the hawkers<\/p>\n
   along the roads and as such, a difficulty has arisen to adjust the eligible<\/p>\n
   applicants on the footpath and also for identification of new squatting<\/p>\n
   and vending areas for them. It was, therefore, suggested by the MCD in<\/p>\n
   the said application that it may be permitted to identify the sites for<\/p>\n
   squatting\/vending areas on the footpath having less than 9 ft. width and<\/p>\n
   for that purpose the open space on the footpath may be reduced from 5 ft.<\/p>\n
   to 3 ft. It was pointed out that if such an order is not passed the number<\/p>\n
   of new sites identified\/to be identified would not exceed 20,000. The<\/p>\n
   third aspect on which emphasis was placed by the MCD was that this<\/p>\n
   Court in its earlier orders has barred transfer of sites. It was pointed out<\/p>\n
   that most of the existing tehbazari sites have been sold by their original<\/p>\n
   allottees to others who are in possession of the sites as on date. It was<\/p>\n
   also pointed out that in most cases the existing occupants of the allotted<\/p>\n
   sites did not apply pursuant to the advertisement which was issued by the<\/p>\n
                                 Page 11 of 20<\/span>
\n   MCD and also in the format which was approved by this Court. Lastly,<\/p>\n
   it was pointed out that in many cases the tehbazari holders have made<\/p>\n
   additions\/alterations and even encroached the adjoining area thereby<\/p>\n
   enlarging the size of the tehbazari which is now fixed at 6 ft. x 4 ft. and<\/p>\n
   even in some cases, making it double storey instead of single storey\/open<\/p>\n
   to sky or closed. Therefore, it was proposed in the said application that<\/p>\n
   the MCD may be allowed to bring the old tehbazari sites into 6 ft. x 4 ft.<\/p>\n
   with an aesthetic design and to take action against encroachers\/violators<\/p>\n
   in order to bring these tehbazaris to a uniform size and manner.<\/p>\n
16. Applications were also filed by the other parties. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,<\/p>\n
   learned counsel appearing for National Association of Street Vendors of<\/p>\n
   India (NASVI) while supporting his application which is registered as<\/p>\n
   I.A. No. 404 in W.P. (C) No. 1699 of 1987 submitted that mobile<\/p>\n
   hawkers should be allowed to replace unauthorised hawkers and that the<\/p>\n
   width of the footpath should be left to be determined by the Ward<\/p>\n
   Vending Committees. He further submitted that the meetings of the<\/p>\n
   Ward Vending Committees should be more transparent and advance<\/p>\n
   notice of such meetings should be given to all concerned particularly to<\/p>\n
   its members.    He also submitted that the applications for granting<\/p>\n
                                Page 12 of 20<\/span>
\n  tehbazari sites are not being considered but instead the authorities have<\/p>\n
  started the eviction process.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17. Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned counsel appearing for Manushi Sangathan<\/p>\n
  made submission that there should be a photo census of all the squatters<\/p>\n
  and hawkers so as to avoid all illegal transfers of such sites in future.<\/p>\n
  She also referred to the NPSV and particularly to paragraph 3.1. of the<\/p>\n
  said Policy which gives vendors a legal status by amending, enacting,<\/p>\n
  repealing and implementing appropriate laws and providing legitimate<\/p>\n
  hawking zones in urban development\/ zoning plans.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. Mr. R.K. Khanna, the learned counsel appearing for the NDMC<\/p>\n
  submitted that so far as NDMC is concerned it does not want the area<\/p>\n
  and width of the footpath to be changed or reduced. He also submitted<\/p>\n
  that they have granted tehbazari licence in accordance with the existing<\/p>\n
  rules\/Schemes.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19. So far I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. 407 in W.P. (C) No. 1699 of 1987 is<\/p>\n
  concerned, orders were already passed in the said application<\/p>\n
  on 05.03.2009.\n<\/p>\n
                                  Page 13 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
20. In view of the aforesaid position we are required mainly to deal with the<\/p>\n
   contentions raised by Mr. Ravishankar Prasad, learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
   appearing for the MCD in respect to the application filed by the MCD<\/p>\n
   whereby they have sought for certain clarifications and also with the<\/p>\n
   contentions raised by Ms. Indira Jaising, Mr. Prashant Bhushan and<\/p>\n
   Ms. Geeta Luthra.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21. So far the contentions of Ms. Indira Jaising    are concerned, the said<\/p>\n
   contentions with regard to the establishment of weekly markets and<\/p>\n
   giving preference to women vendors in the matter of allotment of<\/p>\n
   tehbazari\/vending sites have already been dealt with and orders in that<\/p>\n
   regard have been passed by this Court in the order dated 17.05.2007. It<\/p>\n
   is established from the records and the statements made before us that<\/p>\n
   the Ward Vending Committes numbering 134 as also the Zonal Vending<\/p>\n
   Committes numbering 12 have already been constituted. The Appellate<\/p>\n
   Committee to be presided over by a retired High Court Judge in terms of<\/p>\n
   the orders of this Court has also been constituted. It is an admitted<\/p>\n
   position that no Act or Rules have been framed so far by the Legislature<\/p>\n
   in consonance with the NPSV.        Therefore, orders in the manner of<\/p>\n
   administrative action could be issued subject to law that may be framed<\/p>\n
   by the competent Legislature.\n<\/p>\n
                                Page 14 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
22. With regard to the contentions raised by the MCD regarding reduction of<\/p>\n
   the width of the footpath for pedestrian from 5 ft. concerned, in our<\/p>\n
   considered opinion, no direction in that regard could be passed by this<\/p>\n
   Court. There could be some areas where 5 ft. width of the footpath for<\/p>\n
   the use of pedestrian could be necessary depending on overflowing<\/p>\n
   members using it whereas in some other places width of 5 ft. for a<\/p>\n
   footpath and 4 ft. width for hawkers may not or could not be made<\/p>\n
   available due to various practical reasons. It is also not possible for us to<\/p>\n
   consider reduction of width of such footpath for we are unaware of the<\/p>\n
   existing condition of the footpaths of the various areas in Delhi.<\/p>\n
   Therefore, we do not intend to pass any such orders without there being<\/p>\n
   some concrete materials for such modification. We, however, leave the<\/p>\n
   matter to be considered by the Zonal Vending Committes. At one stage<\/p>\n
   we considered to leave the matter to be considered by the Ward Vending<\/p>\n
   Committees which are 134 in number but the volume being too large we<\/p>\n
   think it fit to leave it to the Zonal Vending Committees to do such<\/p>\n
   exercise as to whether in any particular area, the area of the actual<\/p>\n
   footpath being used by pedestrian could be reduced from 5 ft. to a lesser<\/p>\n
   area so as to make the balance area available to accommodate more<\/p>\n
   hawkers.    While making a study in that regard the Zonal Vending<\/p>\n
                                 Page 15 of 20<\/span>
\n  Committee shall consider all factors including the interest and the<\/p>\n
  requirement of the pedestrian using the footpath in a particular area. The<\/p>\n
  said Zonal Vending Committee after making proper and appropriate<\/p>\n
  study of the prayer for reduction of the width of the footpath for the<\/p>\n
  pedestrian would submit their report to this Court within three months<\/p>\n
  from the date of receipt of a copy of this order whereupon appropriate<\/p>\n
  orders shall be passed in that regard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23. So far the prayer of the MCD with regard to the transfer of<\/p>\n
  tehbazari\/vending sites to the non-family members as per the Scheme of<\/p>\n
  the MCD is concerned, this Court passed an order dated 06.02.2007<\/p>\n
  barring transfer of tehbazari\/vending sites which was reiterated in the<\/p>\n
  order dated 17.05.2007. The said orders were meant to be prospective in<\/p>\n
  nature and, therefore, if any such tehbazari\/vending sites were<\/p>\n
  transferred prior to 06.02.2007 the same could be considered as a valid<\/p>\n
  transfer. But, in any case, no transfer made after 06.02.2007 by way of<\/p>\n
  change of hands, sale etc. would be allowed and any such transfer, if<\/p>\n
  made, would be illegal. Persons found to have been transferred their<\/p>\n
  tehbazari\/vending sites after 06.02.2007 could be evicted as per the due<\/p>\n
  process of law. We believe that the aforesaid order which we have<\/p>\n
  passed with a cut of date of 06.02.2007 directing for legalizing any<\/p>\n
                                Page 16 of 20<\/span>
\n   transfer made prior to 06.02.2007 and declaring all subsequent transfers<\/p>\n
   as illegal and invalid would likely to cause the process of allotment of<\/p>\n
   new tehbazari\/vending sites smooth and easy.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24. So far the contention with regard to applicability of the Delhi Act is<\/p>\n
   concerned, the same lapsed on 31.12.2008 and was subsequently<\/p>\n
   extended till December, 2009. Needless to say, the said law will have to<\/p>\n
   be given effect to as it is a Central law and would definitely have<\/p>\n
   primacy over the administrative orders. The provisions of the Delhi Act<\/p>\n
   have to be implemented and, therefore, none of the orders passed by us<\/p>\n
   would be deemed to have been passed in derogation or contrary to the<\/p>\n
   provisions of the Delhi Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25. We observe that when the Ward Vending Committees hold their<\/p>\n
   meeting, advance notice thereof with sufficient time should always be<\/p>\n
   given to its members and the minutes of the said meeting shall be<\/p>\n
   recorded and record thereof shall be maintained.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26. With regard to the suggestion that is given by Manushi Sangathan<\/p>\n
   regarding maintaining a photo census of all the squatters and hawkers<\/p>\n
   allotted with the tehbazari\/vending sites, we find that the said suggestion<\/p>\n
                                  Page 17 of 20<\/span>
\n   is fair and reasonable and many problems being faced by the MCD<\/p>\n
   regarding illegal transfer, sale etc. would be taken care of if a photo<\/p>\n
   census of all the squatters and hawkers given the tehbazari\/vending sites<\/p>\n
   is made compulsory and properly maintained. We direct MCD to take<\/p>\n
   immediate steps for carrying out photo census of all the existing<\/p>\n
   squatters and hawkers allotted with tehbazari\/vending sites. The photo<\/p>\n
   census shall be compulsory for all future allotment also, if any. MCD<\/p>\n
   shall also maintain proper records of the photo census.<\/p>\n
27. So far as the establishment of the weekly markets and giving preference<\/p>\n
   to women vendors are concerned, this Court has already taken notice of<\/p>\n
   the said submissions and has passed effective orders in that regard. We<\/p>\n
   make it clear that it is for the MCD to consider the aforesaid request and<\/p>\n
   to take appropriate decisions in that regard for we do not intend to pass<\/p>\n
   any such order as the same is, in our considered opinion, in the domain<\/p>\n
   of policy decision.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
28. In terms of the aforesaid order the applications registered as I.A.No. 1 in<\/p>\n
   I.A. No. 407 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 with I.A.No.1 & C.P.(C)<\/p>\n
   No. 170\/2007 in I.A. No. 394 in I.A. No. 356 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987,<\/p>\n
   Contempt Petition (Civil) No.323\/2007 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 with<\/p>\n
                                 Page 18 of 20<\/span>
\nI.A. No. 366 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987, I.A. No. 367 in W.P.(C) No.<\/p>\n
1699\/1987, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 126\/2001, I.A. No. 361 in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)             No. 1699\/1987, I.A. Nos. 372-373 in W.P.(C) No.<\/p>\n
1699\/1987, I.A. No. 389 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987, I.A. No. 392 in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 with W.P.(C) No. 535\/2001, W.P.(C) No.<\/p>\n
240\/2004, I.A. Nos. 397-398 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987, I.A. No. 399 in<\/p>\n
I.A. No. 394 in W.P.(C)           No. 1699\/1987, I.A. Nos. 1-2 in W.P.<\/p>\n
(C) No. 100\/2002, I.A.No….\/2005 in I.A.No. 394 in I.A.No. 356 in W.P.<\/p>\n
(C) No. 1699\/1987, I.A.No….\/2005 in I.A.No. 394 in I.A.No. 356 in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987, I.A. No.400 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 with<\/p>\n
I.A. No.401 in I.A. No. 396 in C.P.            No. 506\/2002 with I.A.<\/p>\n
No….. in C.P. No. 506\/2002, I.A. No.402 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 with<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 414\/2006 with I.A. No.403 in W.P.(C)          No. 1699\/1987<\/p>\n
with I.A. No.404 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 with I.A. No.406 in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No. 1699\/1987 with I.A. Nos.408-409 in W.P.(C)           No. 1699\/1987,<\/p>\n
I.A. No.410 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 with Contempt Petition (Civil)<\/p>\n
No.183 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 with C.P. (C)                   No…….(D.<\/p>\n
No.4361\/2009) in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 are disposed of.<\/p>\n
                                              ………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    [S.B. Sinha]<\/p>\n
                            Page 19 of 20<\/span>
\n                                 …………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]<\/p>\n
New Delhi,
\nApril 9, 2009<\/p>\n
                Page 20 of 20<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009 Author: . M Sharma Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A.No. 1 in I.A. No. 407 in W.P.(C) No. 1699\/1987 PATRI VYAPAR MANDAL DELHI (REGD) ……Petitioner(s) VERSUS M.C.D. TOWN HALL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-23T12:54:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-23T12:54:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3637,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-23T12:54:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-23T12:54:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-23T12:54:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009"},"wordCount":3637,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009","name":"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-23T12:54:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-ors-vs-m-c-d-ors-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 9 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108160","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=108160"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108160\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}