Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2026
RANJIT KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya, Adv.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil) GNCTD, Adv.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 46313/2026 (for directions) in W.P.(C) 8840/2026
2. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking directions to the Respondents to comply with the order dated 7th July, 2026.
3. The brief background of Petitioner’s case is that he is a street vendor with 40% locomotor disability and was issued the Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’) bearing URI No. 1456040 under the category of ‘Others’. He had been vending at the vending site near old bus adda, Sarai Kale Khan, Central Zone, Ward S-56, New Delhi.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was evicted from the vending site by the concerned officials of the Delhi Police, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Public Works Department.
5. On 7th July, 2026, this Court had considered the various submissions made by the parties and had also borne in mind the contention raised by the Delhi government that for the Regional Rapid Transit System (hereinafter, ‘RRTS’) Project, which was being undertaken by the National Capital Region Transport Corporation (hereinafter, ‘NCRTC’), all the unauthorised vendors and tehbazari vendors were to be removed from sites nearby to the station.
6. In the said background, vide order dated 7th July, 2026, this Court had observed as under:
7. In terms of the above order, the Court had clearly held that the ingress and egress to the various access points to the metro station cannot be obstructed in any manner. Bearing in mind the said fact as also the fact that the Petitioner was in the disabled category, the Assistant Commissioner was directed to identify the alternate space for the Petitioner.
8. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present application is that more than two weeks have passed, and the Petitioner has not been allotted an alternate site.
9. Today, the Court has been informed of the order dated 24th June, 2026 passed by the SDM, Jangpura.
10. A perusal of the SDM’s order dated 24th June, 2026 would show that the authorities are presently bearing in mind various factors while deliberating on the action plan for removal of the unauthorised street vendors. The said order is set out below:
11. It is clear from the above that the authorities, including the Special Task Force, are taking various factors into consideration including, as extracted above, that the Sarai Kale Khan Namo Bharat Station-cum-Transit hub is fully functional and it also provides access to the Nizamuddin Railway Station. Connectivity has been created even to the Delhi Metro Station. The STF notes that there is rampant encroachment on the Nizamuddin entry road and the adjoining footpaths.
12. Further, it has been noticed that there are 229 stalls/kiosks which are operating and commuters are facing difficulty in entering and exiting the Sarai Kale Khan Namo Bharat station-cum-transit hub.
13. The paucity of adequate walking space has also been taken into consideration. Recently, the Supreme Court, in its decision dated 19th June, 2026, titled Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., 2026 INSC 647, has recognised the right of pedestrians to safe and demarcated walking spaces, including footpaths, as a fundamental right.
14. The consideration of the aforesaid factors would show that the rights of passengers accessing these metro stations, including their right to safe and adequate walking spaces, would have to be balanced with the rights of the street vendors.
15. The concerned authorities would, therefore, have to identify the space for vending only for those vendors who have authorised provisional COVs, and after identifying such space, they shall be subject to strict terms and conditions governing the manner in which they vend in the area.
16. Considering the order dated 24th June, 2026, passed by the SDM, it is clear that the authorities are taking all these factors into consideration and, in such circumstances, there may have been some delay in identifying the space for vending.
17. Accordingly, a further period of four weeks is granted to the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to identify an appropriate alternate space for the Petitioner to carry on his vending activities, considering that he is a person with disabilities.
18. It is made clear that the activities being undertaken by the Special Task Force are not to be impeded by any of the street vendors, in any manner.
19. The present application is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE JULY 23, 2026/MR/SM