Disposed

Sh. Kuldeep Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/1504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection from removal of his stall in Sarojini Nagar Market till completion of the TVC survey, relying on his late father's entry in the 2012 list of 628 vendors. Finding no material showing the petitioner himself vended since 2012, and market capacity being exceeded, the Court disposed of the petition directing that he may participate in the survey.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sh. Kuldeep Singh Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1504/2024 CM APPL. 6216/2024 CM APPL. 6217/2024 SH. KULDEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Dharmender Sharma and Ms.Kajol Mishra, Advocates.

¶3

versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Chetanya Singh and Ms.Devika Mohan, Advocates for NDMC. Mr.Mayank Kamra, Advocate for Mr.Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel for R2

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU O R D E R

¶5

% 02.02.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that respondent no.1 (hereafter ‘ NDMC’ ) be directed not to harass/remove the petitioner’s stall located in front of shop no.168, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi -110023 till the completion of the survey being conducted by the Town Vending Committee (hereafter ‘ TVC ’).

¶6

The petitioner claims to be son of late Sh. Bachole Singh, whose name was mentioned in the list of 628 unauthorised vendors that were found carrying out the vending activities and should have been accorded protection under the orders passed by this Court.

¶7

The learned counsel for NDMC submits that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the fact that the name of his father is mentioned in the list of 628 unauthorised vendors who were found vending in the area in the year 2012.

¶8

The father of the petitioner expired in the year 2012 and there is no

¶9

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 23:34:14

¶10

material on record to establish that the petitioner is carrying on vending activities since the said date.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of NDMC pointed out that number of vendors seeking the right to vend in the Sarojini Nagar Market, far exceeds the capacity of the said market. In addition, the unauthorised vendors are not permitted to vend from a fixed place.

¶12

Since, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has been carrying on vending activities since the demise of his father in the year 2012, the relief sought for in the petition cannot be granted. 7. Additionally, since it is stated that the Sarojini Nagar Market has a limited capacity and the number of persons claiming the right to vend in the said market exceeds the capacity of the market, no relief in this regard can be granted.

¶13

This Court is informed that a survey is being conducted. In this view, we dispose of this petition by directing that the petitioner would also have a right to participate in the survey and furnish all documents or material to establish that he has been carrying on vending activities. It is stated that the TVC shall consider the matter and record as furnished by the petitioner for taking a decision.

¶14

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s) also stands disposed of.

¶15

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶16

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶17

FEBRUARY 02, 2024 M

¶18

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶19

Sh. Kuldeep Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sh. Kuldeep Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premjeet Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dsssb and Ors. Vs Praveen Kumar

Tripti Sharma Vs Nielit Delhi through Its Joint Director & Ors.

Manjari Jaiswal Vs Delhi University Sports Council & Ors.

Hemlata Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ruchi Goyal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Imrat Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Commissioner & Ors.

Kameshwar Kumar Rai & Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

M/S. Berkeley Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Ors. Vs M/S. Raj Builders Private Limited

Rajwanti Bavariya Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Monika Vs High Court of Delhi at New Delhi through the Registrar General and Anr.

Mohmmad Nural Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Kirpal Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Hawkers Surksha Foundation Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.