Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

NANHU & ORS. ETC. versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

Decided
5 August 1980
Judges listed
V.R. KRISHNA IYER (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 373 · 1980 INSC 148

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KRISHNA IYER, J.-We have disposed of today applications from -cycle rickshaw pliers of Amritsar Municipality where a scheme has 'been worked out to help them become owners of cycle rickshaws. A similar scheme, says the Solicitor-General appearing for the Delhi Admi nistration, will be extended to the Delhi territory. We, therefore, annex a copy of the judgment in Writ Petitions Nos. 839 of 1979 and 563 of'1979-Azad Rickshaw ~ullers Union, Amritsar and others v. State of Punjab & Others and Nanak Chand and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, respectively to this judgment.

pp. 373–374, margin G

There is another problemiwhich arises in these two cases and that is. that the Delhi Administration has put a ceiling on the total number of cycle rickshaws permissible to be plied within its territory perhaps- ' we do not know for certain-this number may ~ot accommodate all the applicants for cycle rickshaws applying licencees. We are told that apart from the applicants in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, there are numerous petitioners who have approached the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution and yet others who have filed suits in civil courts -for the same relief. All that we can do is to accept the suggestion made by the learned Soli- . citor-General that the Delhi Administration will effectively publicize and notify applications for Iicencees for plying of cycle rickshaws and'. all those who. apply will be considered' on their merits including length of service as cycle .rickshaw pliers. The criteria that the Delhi Administration will. adopt must be reasonable and relevant; otherwise it will be open to the aggrieved parties to challenge the selection. Likewise we do not want to fetter the rights of parties aggrieved if the· ceiling upon the total number of rickshaws permissible within the Delhi territory ·is arbitrary.

p. 374, margin B

On the basis of reasonable criteria the Delhi Administration will direct the concerned Municipal authorities to grant licences for plying rickshaws and if the· applicants so chosen are not owners themselves all the facilities we have indicatecl in the Amritsar order will be· extended to such cycle rickshaw pliers fixing reasonable time limits. With these directions we dispose of the applications. Until fresh licences are issued by the Delhi Administration and the fV!unicipal authorities. the present petitioners will be allowed to ply their cycle rickshaws. N.V.K.

p. 374, margin E