Satya Prakash v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi High Court · 20 Jul 2026 · 2026:DHC:5777-DB
Prathiba M. Singh; Vikas Mahajan
W.P.(C) 9676/2026
2026:DHC:5777-DB
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed a vendor holding a valid Certificate of Vending to vend peacefully as a mobile vendor at the designated site, subject to compliance with No-Vending Zone restrictions communicated by municipal authorities.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 9676/2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20th July, 2026
W.P.(C) 9676/2026 & CM APPL.45006/2026
SATYA PRAKASH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Swagata Gupta, Mr Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Ms Renu & Ms
Shivani, Advs. (M: 8013313825)
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Puja S. Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. for
MCD.
Ms. Snehlata. S. Surana, CGSC with Mr. Faisal Ishtiaque, Mr. Sarthak Rana
& Mr. Pradyumn Singh, Advs. for R-3 to 5. (M: 7392990109)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
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- Mr. Satya Prakash under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to peacefully vend from the vending site at J-9/36, Front of Electricity office, Rajouri garden Delhi, west (Delhi), 110027 (hereinafter, the vending site’).

3. The Petitioner has been issued a Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’) bearing URI No. 5068994 under the category of ‘Others’ for vending at West Zone, Ward-S-5.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that he has been vending from the vending site on a Tri-cycle, in a mobile condition. However, he is being repeatedly interpreted and obstructed by the concerned officials of the Delhi Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’).

5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Petitioner has a proper CoV, he ought not to be disturbed.

6. Ld. Counsel for the MCD submits that the Petitioner has to be a mobile vendor, and it is possible that the Petitioner is vending in a No- Vending Zone.

7. The Court has perused the photograph of the Petitioner’s vend. The same is extracted below:

8. It is clear from the above photograph itself that the Petitioner is a mobile vendor.

9. If there is any issue that the Petitioner is vending from a No-Vending Zone, the concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD shall inform the Petitioner as to which is the area, which is not in the No-Vending Zone.

10. In that case, the Petitioner shall not vend in the No- Vending Zone and the Petitioner shall abide by all the remaining terms and conditions of the CoV, subject to which his vend shall not be disturbed in any manner.

11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE JULY 20, 2026/dk/sm