Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, St. Counsel with Mr. Akshat Kulshreshtha, Mr. D.S. Bhanu and Ms. Arsheiya Munja, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Ms. Nupur Sharma for R- 2/UOI.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶11

O R D E R % 04.10.2024

¶12

The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking the

¶13

following reliefs:

¶14

(i) To Allow the present Writ Petition and direct the respondents not to disturb or dispossess the Petitioner from his squatting site at OPD gate no. 2 & 3 RML, Hospital, New Delhi in terms of order dated 09/09/2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr vs. Municpal Corporation Gerater Mumbai & Anr reported in 2013(11) scale in the interest of justice; AND

¶15

(ii) Direct the respondents to iisue vending license and allot the vending site at OPD gate no. 2 & 3 RML, Hospital, New Delhi to the petitioner in the interest of justice;

¶16

AND/OR

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 20:39:09

¶19

(iii) Pass any other or further order(s)/direction(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner in the interest of justice.”

¶20

Mr. Peechara, learned counsel appearing for the New Delhi Municipal Council [ “NDMC” ], however, draws our attention to the order dated 12 May 2016 which was rendered in Devender Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council [W.P.(C) 1163/2016] inter partes on 12 May 2016, and which came to be dismissed in the following terms:

¶21

“1. The petitions seek to restrain the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and Police (in W.P.(C) No. 1151/2016) from interfering with the street vending activities, of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1163/2016 from pavement of Gate No.4, Willington (RML) Hospital, New Delhi and of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1151/2016 from near Bihar Emporium, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Coffee Home, New Delhi.

¶22

Admittedly, neither of the petitioner / their predecessor was granted any teh bazari licence to street vend from the respective site at any time, though the predecessor of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1163/2016 is claimed to have applied therefor. The sole basis of the claim of the petitioners to the relief is Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

¶23

This Court has in a large number of matters dealt with similar claims and reference in this regard may be made to the recent order dated 3^rd May, 2016 in W.P.(C) No.3818/2016 titled Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council , order dated 26^th April, 2016 in W.P.(C) 3479/2016 titled Daya Ram Patel Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council , order dated 14^th March, 2016 in W.P.(C) No.2l72/2016 titled Suresh Babu Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and order dated 26^th February, 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 12154/2016 titled Mahesh Kumar & Another Vs. NDMC .

¶24

The reasons which prevailed with this Court to deny such relief inter alia were:

¶25

(i) security concerns cited by NDMC;

¶26

(ii) the petitioners having no right;

¶27

(iii) uncontrolled/unregulated vending from pavements and roads/streets as has come to the norm cannot be protected to the prejudice of the right of others to use the streets/pavements;

¶28

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 20:39:09

¶29

(iv) public safety inasmuch as owing to the pavements being eaten up by the vendors, the pedestrians are forced to Walk on the road to the peril of their safety and health and impeding movement of vehicular traffic;

¶30

(v) if this Court starts granting protection to all the street vendors, the Town Vending Committee constituted. under the Street Vendors Act would also be unable to perform its functions of identifying hawking zones making allocations with respect thereto;

¶31

(vi) conflicting orders with more than one petitioners obtaining orders of protection with respect to the same site;

¶32

(vii) the petitions involving disputed questions of fact i.e. whether the petitioners in fact have been street vending from the site claimed etc.

¶33

The counsel for the respondent NDMC appearing on advance notice also states that the Town Vending Committee is now functional and in the process of performing its functions under the Street Vendors Act and the petitioners can apply to the Town Vending Committee and if found eligible and entitled to street vend / hawk, would in accordance with the scheme prepared, be allocated the site.

¶34

The counsel for the petitioners states that it be further clarified that the Town Vending Committee while considering the claim of the petitioners would not be influenced by the dismissal of these writ petitions.

¶35

The same is axiomatic, inasmuch as this Court in these petitions has not considered or adjudicated the claim of the petitioners, if any under the Street Vendors Act.

¶36

The petitions are thus dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to apply to the Town Vending Committee and which shall consider the claim of the petitioners uninfluenced by any observation herein.

¶37

Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.”

¶38

We note that we had on that occasion found that neither the petitioner herein nor his predecessors held a tehabazari license and which may have enabled them to undertake vending activities from the site in question. Mr. Peechara, learned counsel for the NDMC on instructions further states that the petitioner is not vending on the site as of the present date.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid, we find ourselves unable to grant the

¶40

¶41

reliefs as claimed in the writ petition.

¶42

Accordingly, while the same shall stand dismissed, this order shall be without prejudice to the liberty which stood reserved in favour of the writ petitioner in paragraph 8 of our earlier order of 12 May 2016.

¶43

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶44

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶45

OCTOBER 4, 2024/ib

¶46

Devender Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Devender Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumer Singh Dhayal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Navin Chandra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ritik Drall Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ritesh Mishra Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sh. Sukhpal Vs Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Pusau Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Smt Vanitaben Bachubhai Nandola B Ed College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Shri Jitender Vs University Ofdelhi & Ors.

Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3) Delhi & Anr.

M/S Maa Bhagwati Trading Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

M/S Shri Vaishnavi Iternational Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited Vs Jaquar & Company Private Limited

Prakash Bawariya and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Suresh Babu Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.