Disposed

Lakhan Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC4 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/4915/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi HC disposed of a petition by a street vendor aggrieved by the requirement to relocate every 30 minutes. The court held that due to the nature of his activity (gas cylinders), the petitioner must be considered a mobile vendor until the Territorial Vending Committee decides otherwise, directing authorities not to obstruct his lawful vending.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner must be considered a Mobile Vendor; contingent direction to TVC to consider representation; respondent not to obstruct lawful vending.

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

¶1

$~33

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4915/2024

¶3

LAKHAN SINGH

¶4

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya, Adv. wit Mr. Kailash Kr. Jha, Mr. Anjani Kr. Mishra, Mr. Akhil Rexwal and Mr. Dipak Raj, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS

¶7

..... Respondents Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for respondent/MCD. SI Mohit Kumar, PS CR Park.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R % 04.04.2024

¶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 from the site described as on the footpath, Opposite E-542-44, Greater Kailash-II, South Zone, Ward-S-87, New Delhi.

¶12

The petitioner is essentially aggrieved being called upon by the concerned respondents to re-locate from the said vending location every thirty minutes. The said stipulation is contained in Clause 11 of the Terms and Conditions applicable to the Certificate of Vending ( COV ) issued to the petitioner.

¶13

One of the issues raised in the present petition is the insistence of the respondents that the petitioner move every 30 minutes. The COV granted to the petitioner indicates that they are vending ‘Food/Snack with gas

¶14

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 10/04/2024 at 12:32:09

¶15

cylinder/fire’ and the vending area is described as South Zone, Ward-S-87. It is submitted that it may not be feasible for such street vendors to move every 30 minutes.

¶16

The petitioner has also sought a direction that he be declared as a “Stationary Street Vendor” .

¶17

We are not persuaded to accept the same.

¶18

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 a Mobile Vendor.

¶19

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 substantial amount of inconvenience to the vendors.

¶20

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:-

¶21

a. Stationary vendor;

¶22

b. Mobile vendor; or

¶23

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

¶24

Undisputedly, the COV is required to be in terms of the Act and thus, must clearly classify the street vendors amongst the three categories. 10. It is also noted that the petitioner is engaged in vending Food/Snacks with gas cylinders/fire”. Plainly, it would be difficult for such street vendors carrying on such activities to move every thirty minutes.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 10/04/2024 at 12:32:09

¶27

As noted above, the petitioner has already filed representation 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.

¶28

We also 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. 13. Accordingly, we dispose of the present petition by directing the concerned TVC to consider the representation moved by the petitioner and take an informed decision.

¶29

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶31

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶32

APRIL 04, 2024/SA

¶33

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 10/04/2024 at 12:32:09

Lakhan Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Singh 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

Ankit Agarwal -Legal Heir of Late Shanti Kumar Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Ankit Agarwal -Legal Heir of Late Shanti Kumar Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Sunoj Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Ankit Agarwal -Legal Heir of Late Shanti Kumar Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Niyati Arora Vs the Manafer Hira Lal Jain Sr. Sec. School and Ors.

Sonu Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Pravartee Sales Private Limited Vs Station Adjudant & Ors.

Umesh Chandra Gupta and Others Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Mypreferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd.

Pradeep Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Paisalo Digital Limited Vs M/S Sun Corp and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S. Samrat Constructions Company Vs Union of India