Hima Kohli, J. - (1.) PURSUANT to the order dated 13.9.2011 passed in WP (C) No. 3095/2011, the file of the proceedings held by the respondent No. 3/Public Grievance Commission (PGC) in respect of a complaint dated 30.9.2008 filed by respondent No. 5, was summoned for perusal so as to verify as to whether the petitioners herein were duly represented before respondent No. 3/PGC on the dates anterior to passing of the impugned order dated 21.3.2011, whereunder the complaint of respondent No. 5 was disposed of with the observation that a compromise formula had been evolved between the parties and as per the said formula, it was agreed that in the area marked in red in the site plan placed before respondent No. 3/PGC, there would be no hawking activity and the same would be vacated by the vendors/hawkers and further, the respondent No. 2/MCD and respondent No. 4/Delhi Police would ensure that the area in question remains free of any hawking activity. The relevant records have been summoned by the Registry from the office of respondent No. 3/PGC. A perusal thereof establishes the fact that the petitioners herein were not represented before the respondent No. 3/PGC on the date anterior to the passing of the order dated 21.3.2011.
(2.) AS regards the short affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4/Delhi Police on 1.9.2011 in WP(C)No.3095/2011, it is stated in para 5 thereof that after a lengthy discussion and much persuasion, a compromise formula had been evolved between respondent No. 2/MCD and respondent No. 5/complainant, whereunder it was agreed that no hawking activity would be permitted at certain earmarked places and that the said area would remain a 'no hawking area'. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit also bears out the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners or their representatives were not present when the aforesaid formula was evolved to settle the grievance of respondent No. 5/complainant. On a query posed to the counsel for respondent No. 2/MCD as to whether any minutes of the meeting held between the parties, were reduced into writing and got signed by all the parties present, the answer is in the negative.
(3.) IN view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners is justified in stating that the petitioners were never represented before the respondent No. 3/PGC on the dates anterior to passing of the impugned order dated 21.3.2011 and they cannot be bound down to any compromise formula mentioned in the impugned order dated 21.3.2011. In these circumstances, while setting aside and quashing the order dated 21.3.2011, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petitions with directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, MCD, to convene a meeting to be attended by the petitioners, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 4/Delhi Police, so as to try and resolve the grievance of respondent No. 5/complainant pertaining to law and order problems arising from holding of a Weekly Monday Bazar on a stretch of road between Gurudwara Road to I.P. Extension.;