The bench noted that its orders against illegal hawking in certain other markets, as Connaught Place and Nehru Place, have been successfully complied with by the concerned authorities. New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Thursday sought the presence of the Commissioner of Delhi Police and the Commissioner of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NrDMC) on how they propose to deal with the menace of illegal hawking in Chandni Chowk. A bench headed by Justice Vipin Sanghi, who was hearing a petition by Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal, noted that the in spite of several judicial orders, the ground situation in the market has not improved and if the authorities surrender their responsibilities, there will be anarchy. “The continuing state of affairs which show that ad-hoc actions have been taken for selective removal of encroachments by the MCD and Delhi Police which has not yielded the desired result of permanently ending encroachments by hawkers and vendors in no-vending zone of Chandni Chowk,” said the bench also comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh. The bench noted that its orders against illegal hawking in certain other markets, as Connaught Place and Nehru Place, have been successfully complied with by the concerned authorities. “Time has come for this court to require the presence of the Commissioner of Delhi Police as well as Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation to explain as to how they propose to deal with the ongoing menace,” the court said. “We cannot accept the position that the respondent authorities are helpless. They cannot surrender or abdicate their statutory responsibility and surrender by respondent authorities will lead to anarchy and failure of rule of law... We therefore direct the Commissioner of Delhi Police and Commissioner, NrDMC to remain present before the court on February 28, 2022,” it added. The court also expressed its displeasure over Delhi Police submitting pictures of the streets from Republic Day and other dates when there was a weekend curfew in the city to show that they had undertaken a drive to remove encroachment. The SHO concerned stated that several photographs of other dates were also filed in the status report to show the action taken pursuant to court orders in the case. “This does not explain filing of photographs (taken on certain days) claiming that they have cleared encroachment... The factual statement is that on these days police has undertaken removal exercise which, in fact, that not been undertaken. This is a clear endeavour to mislead this court,” the court remarked. Senior counsel Sanjeev Ralli, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in spite of the court order, there was still encroachment happening at the market on public pathways and roads. NrDMC counsel Mini Pushkarna said that several actions have been taken for the removal of encroachment. Delhi Police counsel Anuj Aggarwal stated that before February 28, 330 CCTV camera will be installed and a report will be filed in this regard. On January 20, the court had asked the Delhi Police and NrDMC to conduct drives for removing all unauthorised hawkers and vendors from no-hawking zones. The high court had earlier said that anybody who was encroaching upon public space must be removed and it cannot be permitted that the whole pavements in markets are covered with encroachment leaving no space for people to walk. It had also asked the municipal corporation to prepare a street vending plan “for god's sake”. It had also directed Delhi Police to positively take steps on installation of CCTV cameras at Chandni Chowk area before February 28, failing which the Commissioner of Delhi Police shall remain present before it. It had said it was trying to fill up a void which is there in the law, Street Vendors Act, and added that it does not want all these poor people to be driven away but things have to be done in a proper manner with a plan. It had also asked Delhi Police to take steps for removal of encroachers and illegal vendors from the area and directed the police and NrMCD to continue with their anti-encroachment drive. The court had earlier observed that there was no executive or political will to remove illegal hawkers and vendors from streets and barring Lutyens' Delhi, there was no place in the city which was clear from unauthorised squatters.