Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th February, 2026
BHAGWAN DAS SAINI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon and Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rohit Kathuria, Mr. Harshit Sharma and Mr. Anil Makkad, Advs.
Ms. Vaishali Gupta & Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advs. for GNCTD.
SI Ankur Sharma for R3.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner- Bhagwan Das Saini, who was running a tea stall in Rohini, Delhi, inter alia, seeking issuance of the Certificate of Vending (hereinafter ‘COV’) to the Petitioner and for declaring that the demolition of his tea stall by the Respondents was illegal and arbitrary. The Petitioner also prays for an alternative site for vending and putting up his tea stall. The reliefs prayed for in this petition are set out below: “a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to issue certificate of vending; b) Declare that the demolition of the Petitioner’s tea stall was illegal, and arbitrary c) Direct the Respondents to rehabilitate the Petitioner at the same site or in an alternative designated vending zone”
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he had obtained Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (hereinafter, ‘FSSAI’) registration bearing NO. 23320001001253 for opening a tea stall in the year 2016 and had submitted all the documents to the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter, ‘TVC’) on 25th September, 2021. An acknowledgment receipt was issued to the Petitioner on the very same day bearing number URI- 8965854 and since 2021, he continued to run the tea stall in Rohini, Delhi.
4. The survey was to be conducted in the Rohini area, however, since 2021, the survey has not been completed.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that his tea stall was illegally demolished on 26th October, 2023 by the officials of the Respondent No. 2- Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’). The Petitioner thereafter, sought permission on 1st November, 2023 from the Sub-Devisional Magistrate, North-West District, Rohini to re-build the same. The Petitioner made repeated complaints to the authorities and also wrote a representations to allow the Petitioner to re-build the stall, but no relief was granted. Two RTI applications are also stated to have been filed by the Petitioner to which a reply was received that temporary encroachments have been removed by the Department from time to time.
6. The Petitioner then approached the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and filed the present writ petition.
7. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that despite the acknowledgment receipt having been issued to the Petitioner, the Khoka of the Petitioner has been illegally demolished without any notice by the MCD.
8. Notice was issued in this petition on 13th October, 2025. A status report was to be filed by the Delhi Police and the MCD.
9. On 13th January, 2026, this Court had noted that the MCD had filed the status report dated 10th January, 2026. Paragraph 5 of the said status report reads as under:
10. The Court had considered the said status report on 13th January, 2026 and had observed as under:
11. As per the above order, the MCD was directed to answer various questions that were raised and a further status report was called.
12. Today, a status report dated 5th February, 2026 has been filed under the signatures of Dr. Rahul Panwar, Assistant Commissioner, Rohini Zone, MCD. In this status report, it is stated that the documents were submitted by the Petitioner to the MCD which were found to be valid and genuine. The same were taken on record by the MCD. An acknowledgment receipt was also issued to the Petitioner. The Surveying Agency appointed by the TVC in the said area could not complete the survey and accordingly, the same was suspended. Therefore, no provisional COV has been issued to the Petitioner till date.
13. According to the said status report, a physical inspection was also conducted by the MCD, however, the Khoka was not found. It is again the case of the MCD that the MCD did not demolish the Khoka of the Petitioner. The waiver of costs imposed vide order dated 13th January, 2026 is also sought by the MCD. The relevant portion of the said status report is set out below:
14. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not of good financial standing and that the Petitioner’s vend has been demolished illegally. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Petitioner has no source of livelihood as the vend is not being run by the Petitioner.
15. On behalf of the Respondent No.2 -MCD, Mr. Kathuria, ld. Counsel, submits that the inspection of the Khokha has shown that there is no vend or Khoka of the Petitioner at the spot claimed by him. It is further submitted that the agency which had to complete the survey has now been re-assigned the work and it has to complete the survey within a period of three months from October, 2026 i.e., by 23rd January, 2026. However, ld. Counsel for the MCD submits that the same has still not been completed and is still underway. It is also submitted that the MCD has no objection if the Petitioner carries out the vending activities.
16. Having heard the ld. Counsels for the Parties and having seen the record, it is surprising to note that the acknowledgment receipt had already been issued to the Petitioner for the participation in the survey. However, since the year 2021, the survey has not taken place and MCD has taken no steps to get the survey completed. Moreover, it appears that it is only recently, i.e., in October that the survey appears to have commenced.
17. The survey in the said area was to be completed by the end of January, however, it has not yet been completed. Accordingly, let steps be taken for completion of the survey within a period of further three months. If the agency appointed by the TVC is unable to complete the survey, the agency shall be changed by the MCD.
18. After completion of the survey, the Petitioner, if found eligible, shall be issued a provisional COV. In the meantime, the Petitioner is permitted to put up his tea stall/vend as a mobile vendor and not as a stationary vendor in the place where he was earlier vending.
19. The usual terms of the provisional COV which are issued by the MCD shall be adhered to by the Petitioner and for the sake of reference, the same are extracted below: “Terms & Conditions of the Vending Certificate
1. Vendor shall not have any other permanent or long-term vending certificate.
2. Vending certificate is non-transferable.
3. It is mandatory for the vendor to follow the vending period and zone as determined by TVC or local body.
4. Vendor shall not give his vending certificate on rent in any way.
5. Vendor shall not have any infectious disease.
6. Vendor shall have to take care of hygiene on vending place/zone and nearby area and also take care of public health.
7. Vendor shall display copy of vending certificate on his place/vending site and will produce original documents to TVC/concerned inspector whenever required.
8. Vendor/Squatter shall insure that no hindrance be caused to pedestrian and vehicular moment.
9. Vendor shall not vend/sell any harmful, dangerous and polluted items. It should also be ensured that the quality of the products sold and services provided to the public conform to the prescribed standards of public health, hygienic conditions and safety.
10. The street vendor shall not do any unauthorized/illegal activity.
11. Mobile vendors shall not stay or vend more than 30 minutes or time prescribed by the TVC at place in a vending/squatting zone.
12. Vendors will not block footpaths and will not vend on roads. Vendor should take care of space in front of vending stalls/counters on footpath for pedestrians.
13. Vending certificate can be cancelled or suspended on the basis of violations.
14. Vendor shall not build or construct any kind of permanent or temporary structure at vending site.
15. Seller shall adopt health and hygiene conditions as required by local laws and court orders.
16. Vendor have to follow all the conditions mentioned in Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019.
20. Subject to the Petitioner adhering to the above terms and conditions, he shall not be disturbed from putting up his tea stall/vend.
21. In the above facts and circumstances, the prayer for waiver of costs is also rejected. The cost shall be paid by the Respondent No.2-MCD within a period of two weeks.
22. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
23. List for compliance on 4th May, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE FEBRUARY 12, 2026 b/ck