Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 27th July, 2026
RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vipin Kumar, Mr. Aditya, Mr. Anjani Kr. Mishra, Ms. Pralika Chakraborty, Mr. Fareeduddin, Ms. Srejal Mishra, Advocates.
Through: Ms. Meherunnisa A. Jaitley Adv. with
Mr. Aryan Tyagi Adv. for MCD.
Ms. Vaishali Gupta (Panel counsel for GNCTD) and Ms. Aanchal Rajput
Advocate for R-3.
Mr Vikram Jetly CGSC with Ms. Shreya Jetly Advocate and SI
Yashveer Sharma PS Govindpuri for R-4 and 5.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to peacefully vend from the designated site i.e., on the open space, Jagdamba Road, Opposite RZ-216-A, Tughlakabad Extn, Central Zone, Ward-S-82, New Delhi.
3. The Petitioner, who is a street vendor has been issued a Certificate of Vending (hereinafter ‘CoV’) bearing no. URI No. 1162365 by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) in the category of ‘Food/Snacks with gas cylinder/fire’. The photograph of the vend of the Petitioner has been placed on record, which is extracted below:-
4. The case of the Petitioner is that he is not being allowed to peacefully vend and thus, the prayer is for stopping the harassment which the Petitioner is facing.
5. Ms. Meherunnisa A. Jaitley, ld. Counsel for the MCD has pointed out that the photographs filed by the Petitioner are extremely misleading. It is her submission that the Petitioner is occupying more space on the footpath and also not keeping the area clean. Further, the Petitioner has also put up a tandoor and has extended his cart much beyond the permissible limits. The photographs handed over by the ld. Counsel for the MCD are as under:-
6. Heard ld. Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the photographs handed over by the ld. Counsel for the MCD would show that the area surrounding the vend of the Petitioner is extremely unhygienic and the Petitioner is occupying much more space than is permissible. Even the tandoor, etc. and the other utensils are not being maintained as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the CoV. The terms and conditions of the CoV have to be strictly adhered to and the same are extracted below:
7. The Petitioner is clearly misleading the Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The Authorities are free to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with law. If the Petitioner is willing to vend strictly in terms of the CoV issued to him, the same shall be permitted.
8. After having seen the photographs in this case, it is clear that the area surrounding the vend of the Petitioner also requires some repair. Accordingly, after action is taken against the Petitioner, the entire footpath and road shall be repaired and photographs showing the same would be placed on record. If the maintenance of the road and the footpath in the said area are with any other agency such as the Public Works Department, etc. then the said agency shall undertake the repair drive.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
10. List for compliance on 17th September, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE JULY 27, 2026/MR/CK