Dismissed

Irfan v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC21 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/2586/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a street vendor with a COV, sought to be declared a Stationary Vendor and stopped from being relocated. The Court declined the petition noting no fixed site was allotted, classifying him as a Mobile Vendor, but directed the TVC to consider his representation while prohibiting obstruction of his vending.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition was dismissed. The TVC was directed to consider the petitioner's representation and take a decision while the petitioners shall not be obstructed from vending.

Irfan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2586/2024

¶4

IRFAN

¶5

		...	.. Petitioner
Through:	Mr.Bibhuti Mr.Kamlesh	Bhushan Kumar	Mishra, Mishra,
	Mr.Dipak	Raj and	Ms.Tripti,
	Advocates.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	N OF DELHI	AND ORS

¶6

		..... Respondent
Through:	Ms.Shalini Chander,	Advocate for
	MCD/R1.
	Mr.Mohd.Irshad, AS	C, Ms.Nasreen,
	Mr.Shailesh Chouhan	and Mr.Kunal
	Raj, Advocates for R3	to R5.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 21.02.2024

¶11

The petitioner is a street vendor and has filed the above petition, inter alia, praying that he be not disturbed in carrying on his vending activities on ‘Footpath, Vikas Marg, Near Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, Laxmi Nagar, Shahdara South Zone, Ward 13E, New Delhi.

¶12

The petitioner has been issued a Certificate of Vending ( COV ) by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner has sought a direction that the nomenclature in the COV be corrected to read as “Stationary Vendor” . 3. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved as he is not being allowed to vend from a fixed place. The petitioner is being called upon by the concerned respondents to re-locate from his vending location every thirty minutes. The said stipulation is contained in Clause 11 of the Terms and

¶13

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 11/03/2024 at 11:34:28

¶14

Conditions applicable to the COV issued to the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner has also sought a direction that he be not removed from his vending site and that he declared as a “Stationary Street Vendor” .

¶16

We are not persuaded to accept the same.

¶17

Admittedly, no specific site was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner is also not vending from a permanent or semi-permanent structure. Thus, till any other decision is taken by the TVC, the petitioner is required to be considered as Mobile Vendor.

¶18

Having stated the above, we are of the view that the petitioner has highlighted a serious issue that requires consideration by the concerned authorities. Calling upon the Mobile Vendors to move or relocate would inevitably put a higher pressure on the streets, in addition to causing some amount of inconvenience to the vendors.

¶19

Section 6(1) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014 (hereafter ‘ the Act’ ) expressly provides that the COV can be issued under three categories:-

¶20

a. Stationary vendor;

¶21

b. Mobile vendor; or

¶22

c. Any other category as may be specified under the Scheme.

¶23

Undisputedly, the COV is required to be in terms of the Act and thus, must clearly classify the category of the street vendors.

¶24

It is also noted that the petitioner is engaged in vending goods that fall in the category of “Others”.

¶25

As noted above, the petitioner has already filed representations with the TVC. It would be necessary for the TVC to take an appropriate decision in this regard till the survey is completed and a vending plan is put in place.

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 11/03/2024 at 11:34:28

¶28

In the meanwhile, we direct that the respondents shall not obstruct or disturb the petitioner from carrying on his vending activities provided the same are carried on in accordance with the terms and conditions of the COV.

¶29

Accordingly, we dispose of the present by directing the concerned TVC to consider the representation moved by the petitioner and take an informed decision. The denial of relief as sought for by the petitioner, by this Court would not preclude the TVC from considering the same.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶32

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶33

FEBRUARY 21, 2024 M

¶34

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 11/03/2024 at 11:34:28

Irfan v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S R.K. Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Om Prakash & Anr.

Sunil Kumar Dagar Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Dabwali Agro Storage Vs Food Corporation of India

Aurelie Lafitte Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjay Steels Vs Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs MCD

Sarna Bansiwal Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors.

Upcountry Land and Projects Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1), Delhi & Ors.

Union of India Vs M/S Gitwako Farms Private Limited & Anr.

Union of India Vs M/S Gitwako Farms Private Limited & Anr.

Ganga Ram Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Mehboob Ahmad Vs Muneer Ahmad & Anr.

Union of India Vs M/S Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Vimla Devi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.