Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2026
KANYAWATI ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya, Advocate.
Through: Ms. Meherunnisa A. Jaitley Adv. with
Mr. Aryan Tyagi Adv. for R-1 and 2.
Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel ( Civil ) Gnctd, Adv. for R-3.
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 inclusion in the elections for the forthcoming Town Vending Committee, South Zone, MCD, under the Other Backward Class (hereinafter, ‘OBC’) category.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that she belongs to the Ghewar community from Uttar Pradesh, and has been issued an OBC certificate, from the said State.
4. Pursuant to the elections guidelines 2026, issued by the MCD for the elections of members of the Town Vending Committee, the Petitioner had submitted her nomination for being elected as one of the representatives of the street vendors under the OBC Category.
5. However, the grievance of the Petitioner is that her nomination was rejected and was not included in the list of nominated candidates published by the returning officer on 11th July, 2026.Hence, the present petition.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the Petitioner's name may be considered under the GENERAL category.
7. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the MCD submits that there are two reasons why the nomination of the Petitioner was rejected. The same are:
(i) That Ghewar backward caste, which is recognized as an OBC in
(ii) That the signature of the Proposer and Seconder was also not there in the nomination form.
8. Mr. Aditya, ld. Counsel submits that the reasons for rejection of nomination have not been communicated to the Petitioner by the MCD.
9. The Court has considered the matter. This Court has already taken a view in respect of the inclusion of street vendors belonging to the reserved categories in the TVC elections, in W.P.(C) 9966/2026, titled ‘Dharamveer & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.’
10. In Dharamveer & Ors. (supra), this Court observed that the elections to the TVCs are of considerable significance and that there has been a substantial delay in the constitution of the TVCs in Delhi. The Court further noted that the elections to the TVCs are being conducted pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 26311-26312/2019, titled ‘Saptahik Merchant Welfare Association (Registered) v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.’
11. In this regard, the observations of this Court in Dharamveer & Ors. (supra) are as under:
18. The above order also clearly directs that the TVC elections and re-constitution ought to be conducted within a period of two months. This Court is also entertaining several writ petitions where street vendors seek their permanent certificates of vending and the said decisions are now awaiting constitution of TVCs.
19. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, at this stage of elections of TVCs.
20. Accordingly, the petition, along with pending applications, is dismissed at this stage.
21. Needless to add, the Petitioners are free to avail of their remedies in accordance with law after the elections are concluded.”
12. In terms thereof, considering that this Court has already taken a view in similar matters, the only direction that the Court is inclined to pass, at this stage, is that the election shall not be interrupted or stalled in any manner.
13. The Petitioner is, however, at liberty to avail of her remedies in accordance with law, as after the elections to the TVC have concluded.
14. Needless to add, the MCD may communicate to the Petitioner, within a period of two weeks, the reasons for rejection of nomination, as submitted before this Court today, by way of an appropriate communication.
15. The petition is disposed of with all pending applications, if any.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE JULY 23, 2026/MR/SM