Angad Singh v. The Chairperson NDMC & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 13 Mar 2026 · 2026:DHC:2187-DB

Prathiba M. Singh; Madhu Jain

W.P.(C) 13889/2025 & W.P.(C) 3141/2026

2026:DHC:2187-DB

administrative appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the Town Vending Committee's survey finding Mr. Kamlesh Kumar as the eligible vendor at Shop No. 25, directing Mr. Angad Singh to vacate the site and comply with vending regulations.

Full Text

W.P.(C) 13889/2025 & W.P.(C) 3141/2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th March, 2026 ~30

W.P.(C) 13889/2025 & CM APPL. 15466/2026, CM APPL.
15467/2026 ANGAD SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv. with
Petitioner-in-person.
Mr. N. K. Sahoo, Adv.

VERSUS

THE CHAIRPERSON NDMC & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, SC for NDMC with Mr. Soumit Ganguli, Ms. Ravicha Sharma and Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Mr. Akash Sharma, Advs. for NDMC.
~33

W.P.(C) 3141/2026 & CM APPL. 15110/2026
KAMLESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. K. Sahoo, Adv.

VERSUS

NEW-DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, SC for NDMC with Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Tripathi, ASC, Mr. Soumit Ganguli, Ms. Ravicha Sharma and Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Mr. Akash Sharma, Advs. for NDMC.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

JUDGMENT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These are two connected petitions which relate to the issue of squatting at the site in front of Roop Sari Show Room of Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi-110023 (hereinafter, ‘site near Shop No.25’).

3. There were three claimants to Shop No.25. The names of the said claimants are as under: i. Mr. Angad Singh; ii. Mr. Ramdev Yadav; iii. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar.

4. Multiple proceedings have been filed before this Court including writ petitions and contempt petitions. One such writ petition was filed by Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar being W.P.(C) 5008/2025 titled ‘Ramdev Yadav & Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.’ The said writ petition was disposed of on 22nd April, 2025 and the facts have been captured therein. In the said order, it is clearly recorded that the chronology of events begins with W.P.(C) 4806/2024 titled ‘Angad Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr’.

5. Mr. Angad Singh had filed W.P.(C) 4806/2024 titled ‘Angad Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.’ wherein vide order dated 26th April, 2024 it was directed as under:

“1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “a). Direct The Respondents to allow the petitioner for vending at his current vending site to protect the livelihood of petitioner as the petitioner is a daily bread earner of his family and also found in the list of 628 at serial no. 400. b). Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Pass such other or further orders, as their Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts

and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent (NDMC) does not dispute that the petitioner’s name features in the list of 628 street vendors that was prepared in the year 2012. However, he also states that the petitioner was found vending at the site near Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi. He further submits that, at the temporary stage, the petitioner can continue to vend at the site near Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the same would redress his grievance.

3. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing that the petitioner shall not be interdicted from carrying on vending activities at the site near Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi, subject to the petitioner carrying on the vending activities in accordance with law (including by occupying an area not more than 6’ X 4’ and open to the sky).

4. We clarify that this arrangement would only continue till the survey is completed and a vending plan is prepared.”

6. In terms of the above order, the Court had directed that Mr. Angad Singh would not be interdicted from carrying on vending activities from site near Shop No.25 so long as he carries out the same in accordance with law.

7. According to Mr. Ram Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Mr. Angad Singh was squatting near the Delhi Public Library and not in front of shop No.25. It is their allegation that with the collusion of the police and other authorities, and on the strength of the order dated 26th April, 2024, they were removed from Shop No.25 and Mr. Angad Singh took possession of the site near Shop No. 25.

8. Aggrieved by the removal from the site near Shop No.25, Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar filed W.P.(C) 16996/2024 titled ‘Ramdev Yadav and Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Ors.’ In the said petition, vide order dated 9th December, 2024 the writ petition was disposed of and Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar were permitted to question the direction given in paragraph 3 of order dated 26th April, 2024 in W.P.(C) 4806/2024.

9. Pursuant thereto, an application was filed in W.P.(C) 4806/2024 being Rev.Pet. 7/2024 by Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar. The said review petition was disposed of vide order dated 21st February, 2025, with the following observations:

“6. The contention that the address mentioned in the memo of parties (Near Delhi Public Library) indicates that the petitioner’s place of vending was not in the vicinity of shop no.25, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi is also not persuasive. We have examined the map of the area, which indicates that the Delhi Public Library is in the vicinity of shop no.25, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi.”

20,715 characters total

10. In view thereof, Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar had stated that they ought to be reinstated at the site near Shop No. 25.

11. After considering the entire matter in W.P.(C) 5008/2025, vide order dated 22nd April, 2025, the following directions were issued:

“11. The question as to whether who are the eligible squatters to squat and vend in front of Shop no. 25 and whether Sh. Angad Singh had placed the full facts before the Court or not, would be a factual dispute which cannot be decided in a writ petition.

12. The New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’) being the authority in the concerned area would have to call all the three parties i.e. the Petitioners and Sh. Angad Singh and verify their credentials properly and fix the site as to where they can vend.

13. This Court in a writ petition would not be able to examine these documents and the geographical location of the sites in questions.

14. Accordingly, in order to avoid any further confusion in this matter, the following directions are issued: a. The Town Vending Committee (hereinafter, ‘TVC’) shall call the Petitioners and Sh. Angad Singh along with all the requisite documents to ascertain as to whether they were vending and if so, at what location. b. After verifying the documents and credentials of all the three vendors, the TVC shall fix the site where they would be permitted to vend, so long as the same is not within the nonvending zone. c. On the basis of the conclusion which would be arrived at by the TVC, the Petitioners and Sh. Angad Singh shall be permitted to participate in the survey, if any, carried out by the TVC.

15. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this order to the Petitioners and Sh. Angad Singh i.e. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4806/2024 as also through ld. Counsel Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, who represented Sh. Angad Singh in the said writ petition.

16. The TVC, through its officer Mr. Krishan Kumar, shall hold a meeting with the Petitioners and Sh. Angad Singh on 07th May, 2025 at 3:00 P.M. at the following address: Director Enforcement, South at Pragati Bhawan, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi…” S

12. As can be seen from the above order, the Court had directed that all three parties i.e., Mr. Ramdev Yadav, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar and Mr. Angad Singh shall be heard by the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter, ‘TVC’), and their documents and credentials shall be verified. After verifying them, the decision was to be taken by the TVC as to who was to be the eligible vendor at the site near Shop no.25.

13. Thereafter, a survey was conducted by TVC and both Mr. Angad Singh and Mr. Ramdev Yadav were found to be ineligible. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar was held to be the eligible vendor near Shop No. 25.

14. However, Mr. Angad Singh refused to vacate the site in front of shop no. 25. Hence, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar has filed the present writ petition being W.P.(C) 3141/2026 seeking the following prayers: “(a)To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction or order directing the respondents for permitting the petitioner having CERTIFICATE OF VENDING(COV) to squat and vend at his place of squatting in front of Shop No 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, Sarojini Nagar, New-23 where he had been surveyed twice in the year 2018&2025 and squatting over the period of 25 years.. b) And to pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.”

15. On the other hand, the allegation of Mr. Angad Singh is that he is being unnecessarily harassed by the concerned officials of the police and NDMC. It is stated that he is vending in front of Shop No.25. and has filed a complaint dated 22nd August, 2024 raising allegations of corruption against certain police officials. Hence, the present petition being W.P.(C) 13889/2025 has been filed seeking the following prayers: “a. admit the writ petition against the respondents. b. please to ISSUE writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case whereby direction may be issue to Respondent No 1 to take proper and suitable action as per law on complainant cum representation of the petitioner dated 22.8.2025 against his erring official Mr Rahul Meena, area inspector of Sarojini Nagar Market and his team. c. Please to direct the Respondent No 2 to release the goods of the petitioner forthwith without any fine which have been illegally lifted by his area inspector and his team without fallowing any due process of law on 19.8.2025. d. please to pass appropriate order/ direction against Respondents to ensure that petitioner may not be further disturbed from his existing place of vending without any reasonable cause or justification. e. Please to allow cost of litigation in favour of petitioner and against respondents for time and again forcing the petitioner to knock door of justice inspite of order in his favour. f. pass any other order/ relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

16. The Court has heard ld. Counsels, Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Mr. N.K. Sahoo and Mr. Sriharsha Peechara.

17. Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi has made the following submissions on behalf of Mr. Angad Singh:

(i) It is submitted that Mr. Angad Singh is rightly squatting near shop No. 25 and he ought not to be removed from the said site.

(ii) It is contended that action ought to be taken against one Mr.

Rameshwar Fauzi, who had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on behalf of the area Inspector from Mr. Angad Singh. The further case of Mr. Angad singh is that despite the complaint dated 22nd August, 2025 being made against the said official, no action has been taken by the concerned officials.

18. On behalf of Mr. Ramdev Yadav, Mr. N.K. Sahoo ld.counsel submits that Mr. Ramdev Yadav deserves to be impleaded in this matter as his interest is likely to be affected and he was displaced by Mr. Angad Singh.

19. Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, ld. Counsel for the NDMC, has brought to the notice of this Court certain glaring facts which are relevant. In the status report filed by Mr. Satish Kumar, the Joint Director Enforcement, (South) NDMC, various photographs have been annexed to show that Mr. Angad Singh is, in fact, sub-letting the entire site when the inspection was conducted by the concerned officials of the NDMC on 6th November, 2025, 17th November, 2025, 22nd November 2025 and 24th November, 2025. The relevant portion of the said status report and the photographs are as under:

“4. An important factual development, which bears directly upon the Petitioner's credibility and the motive underlying his complaint, concerns the outcome of the 2025 Street Vending Survey undertaken by NDMC. It is submitted that the Petitioner has participated in this survey, during which his documents and particulars were scrutinised in accordance with the prescribed norms Upon assessment, the Petitioner was found ineligible for being issued a Provisional Certificate of Vending ("COV"). Conversely, the Petitioner's son, one Mr Bhupendra Singh, who applied independently, was found eligible and was duly issued a Provisional COV. Under the governing policy framework and the norms applicable to vending within the NDMC area, a family unit is entitled to only one vending site. Thus, even assuming the Petitioner had previously been vending in the area, the lawful entitlement devolved upon his son alone, and the Petitioner's own claim to a vending spot cannot subsist alongside the COV issued to his family through his son. 5. It is submitted that this circumstance is of considerable relevance, for notwithstanding his ineligibility, the Petitioner continued claiming personal rights over the vending spot and, as detailed below, allowed persons other than himself to operate from it in violation of established rules. 6. Following the survey, it is submitted that routine inspections of Sarojini Nagar Market were conducted on 06.11.2025, 17.11.2025. 22.11.2025, and 24.11.2025. On each of these dates, the Petitioner was not found anywhere near the vending site. Instead, four (04) individuals were discovered operating the stall. When questioned, these individuals stated that they were each working on a salary of INR 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) per day on behalf of the

Petitioner. Further enquiry was conducted by scanning the QR code displayed at the vending spot for customer payments. It was revealed that the proceeds of the business were being deposited into an account belonging to one Mr Purushottam, who has no nexus with the Petitioner's survey application, the COV process, or any recognised vending activity. These findings clearly establish that the vending site was being sub-let to unauthorised persons, and that the Petitioner himself was not engaged in vending activity at all. The said inspections were videographed, photographed, and independently witnessed. The photographs of the inspection undertaken on 06.11.2025, 17.11.2025, 22.11.2025, and 24.11.2025 are annexed herewith and marked as

20. A perusal of the photographs and videos that have also been filed by the NDMC would show that third parties are vending from the site near Shop No. 25.

21. Further, Mr. Peechara also submits that Mr. Angad Singh, having been found to be ineligible in the survey conducted by the TVC, ought not to be permitted to vend at the said site.

22. Additionally, it is also submitted by Mr. Peechara that Mr. Angad Singh’s son- Mr. Bhupendra Singh, continues to vend at the old vending place of Mr. Angad Singh, and is selling ready made garments at the vending site, Delhi Public Library Corner, near G-402, Sarojini Nagar Market. In this regard, he has placed before the Court the copy of the vending details.

23. Thus, it is also contended by ld. Counsel for the NDMC that Mr. Angad Singh and his family members are already vending in front of the Delhi Public Library Corner, which is the original vending site of Mr. Angad Singh. They have incorrectly and illegally occupied the space in front of shop No.25, on the strength of the order dated 26th April, 2024, which is contrary to law.

24. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the records.

25. Clearly, there are three persons who are staking claims for the site near shop No.25 and have filed repeated multiple petitions and have caused considerable confusion.

26. Vide order dated 22nd April, 2025 this Court had taken a comprehensive view of the matter and had directed a fresh survey and verification of documents to be conducted by the TVC.

27. Pursuant to the survey that was conducted by the TVC, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar was found to be the eligible vendor for the site in front of shop No.25. Thus, Mr. Angad Singh cannot continue to occupy the said site.

28. Pertinently, a show-cause notice has already been issued to Mr. Angad Singh on 2nd December, 2025 raising the allegations that Mr. Angad Singh was sub-letting the entire site when the inspection was conducted by the concerned officials of the NDMC. The relevant portion of the show cause notice dated 2nd December, 2025 is as under: “ SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 26.04.2024 in W.P.(C) 4806/2024, granted interim relief in your favour for carrying out vending activities at the designated site near Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, subject to compliance with the applicable norms—specifically, that the vending area shall not exceed 6 ft x 4 ft and must be located in an open to-sky space. Whereas, several routine inspections of Sarojini Nagar Market were conducted by the Enforcement Inspector (SN Market), during which the following observations were made: i. You were not found present at your designated vending site on 06.11.2025, 17.11.2025, 22.11.2025, and 24.11.2025. ii. Instead of you, four (04) other individuals were found operating your stall. iii. These individuals were selling goods at your site using UPI/QR code transactions. iv. The vending area being used was found to be larger than the permitted 6 ft x 4 ft. The above actions constitute unauthorized occupation, misuse of vending permission, and violation of court-ordered conditions. In view of the above, you are hereby called upon to show cause and explain your position on account of above violations within 4 days from the receipt of this notice. Any unsatisfactory reply or failure to respond shall be viewed seriously and may lead to cancellation of the permission granted to you. This notice is issued with the prior approval of Director (Enforcement), South.”

29. A reply dated 8th December, 2025 is stated to have been filed by Mr. Angad Singh claiming that he had certain medical issues, due to which in November, he had permitted certain vendors to vend from the site near Shop No. 25.

30. Be that as it may, the show-cause notice and the proceedings thereunder would continue in accordance with law.

31. However, in the meantime, since the survey has been undertaken by the NDMC, and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar has been held to be the eligible vendor for the site near Shop No.25, Mr. Angad Singh cannot continue to occupy the said premises.

32. In so far as Mr. Ramdev Yadav is concerned, post the survey was conducted, he had already filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) 18871/2025 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12th December, 2025 in the following terms: “Since the petitioners do not possess a ‘Certificate of Vending’ under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, no case for showing indulgence in our extraordinary jurisdiction is made out.

2. The petition, as such, stands dismissed.

3. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. ”

33. The allegation that Mr. Ramdev Yadav was not permitted to participate in the survey is completely bereft of merit as NDMC was under an obligation to verify the credentials in terms of the order dated 22nd April, 2025, passed by this Court. The same has already been done by the NDMC.

34. Under these circumstances, the following directions are issued: i. Mr. Angad Singh is granted three days’ time i.e., till 17th March 2026, to vacate the site near Shop No.25,voluntarily. In the event of failure to comply with the same, within the stipulated period, he shall be removed from the site near Shop No. 25 on 18th March 2026, in accordance with law. ii. The site near Shop No. 25 shall be handed over to Mr. Kamlesh Kumar. iii. In so far as Mr. Ramdev Yadav is concerned, his case lacks any merit. However, his application for impleadment is allowed. iv. In so far as the show-cause notice issued to Mr. Angad Singh is concerned, the same shall be proceeded in accordance with law. After hearing Mr. Angad Singh, the orders shall be passed by the NDMC in accordance with law. v. In so far as the complaint dated 22nd August, 2025 of Mr. Angad Singh is concerned, the same shall be looked into by the Director Enforcement, NDMC and if any of the officials or any other third party is found to be in violation of law, appropriate action shall be taken by the NDMC.

35. This order shall be placed by Mr. Angad Singh, Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, in any other proceedings, which may be filed by them before this Court.

36. Lastly, this Court does not approve of the fact that Mr. N.K. Sahoo, ld. Counsel, seeks to appear for both Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, who are staking claims for the same site near Shop No. 25.

37. Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, ld. Counsel has also informed the Court that Mr. Sahoo, ld. Counsel, used to appear for Mr. Angad Singh earlier.

38. Accordingly, Mr. N.K. Sahoo is cautioned that in future he should ensure that such conflict of interest does not arise when he appears.

39. The videos handed over in a pendrive by the ld. Counsel for NDMC shall be downloaded and be tagged along with the electronic record of this Court.

40. The present two petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

41. The next date of hearing i.e., 22nd May, 2026, stands cancelled.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE MARCH 13, 2026 b/sm

Angad Singh v. The Chairperson NDMC & Anr.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation