Disposed

Rupam Devi and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC16 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/5459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging vendor classification and vending restrictions sought correction of Category in Certificates of Vending. Court found petitioners ineligible for stationary status without fixed sites and declined classification examination, directing non-disturbance and consideration of representations.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioners not to be disturbed from vending activities subject to COV compliance; TVC/MCD to examine representation regarding stationary classification.

Rupam Devi and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~45

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5459/2024

¶4

RUPAM DEVI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sanjay Baniwal and Ms. Manisha, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Nikhil Palli, ASC for MCD Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel , GNCTD with Ms. Surbhi Soni, Advocate for R-2, 3 & 4

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R % 16.04.2024

¶11

The petitioners have filed the present petition inter alia praying as under:

¶12

“I. Pass an order directing the Respondents not to disturb the operation of the vending unit of the Petitioners at South Zone, Ward - S - 70 in reference/ compliance of the Certificates of Vending (COV) issued by the Respondents;

¶13

II. Pass an order directing the Respondent MCD to rectify the category of Petitioners as Stationary Street Vendors in their Certificates of Vending;”

¶14

The petitioners (15 in number) have been issued Certificates of Vending (COV) and have been carrying on the vending activities. The grievance of the petitioners stems from the action of the authorities in insisting that the petitioners not carry out the vending activities from a fixed place for more than 30 minutes.

¶15

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 04/07/2025 at 01:18:07

¶16

At present, the respondents are treating the petitioners as mobile vendors in terms of the Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the COV. They are proscribed from vending from a fixed place for more than 30 minutes or such time as may be fixed by the Town Vending Committee (TVC).

¶17

The petitioners claim that they are stationary vendors and pray that the COVs be corrected to reflect the same.

¶18

It is, however, the respondents’ contention that the COVs issued to the petitioners are interim COVs and the final COVs are required to be issued by the New Town Vending Committee (TVC-II) that would be constituted after the survey is complete.

¶19

Since it is an admitted case that the petitioners have not been allocated any fixed site for carrying on their vending activities, they cannot be considered as stationary vendors at this stage.

¶20

It is also relevant to note that in terms of the Section 6(1) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014 (hereafter the Act’ ) the street vendors are required to be classified 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

However, the COVs issued by the respondents do not carry any such classification. Thus, there is merit in the contention that the petitioners have not been issued COVs in conformity with the Act.

¶25

This Court is considering the said issue in another writ petition being W.P.(C) 2265/2024 titled Shiv Prasad and Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation

¶26

¶27

of Delhi and Ors. , however no interim orders have been passed in the said matter.

¶28

Undisputedly, any orders passed in regard to issuance of COVs classifying the category of street vendors or for examining the same would enure the benefit to all street vendors. Thus, we do not consider it necessary to keep the present petition pending. At this stage, it is also not apposite to consider the classification of the petitioners, as the same would be required to be considered by the concerned TVC/MCD.

¶29

In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing that the petitioners would not be disturbed from carrying on their vending activities subject to the petitioners strictly complying with the COVs.

¶30

The petitioners have also made representations to the Chairman, MCD and TVC. This Court also considers it apposite to direct the concerned TVC/MCD to examine the representation made by the petitioners including with regard to the issue that they be treated as stationary street vendors.

¶31

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶33

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶34

APRIL 16, 2024 g.joshi

¶35

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 04/07/2025 at 01:18:07

Rupam Devi and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupam Devi and Ors. 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

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Harish Chander Sharma

Harvinder Singh Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govrnment of India and

Ajit Sarin Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Priya Sarin and Anr. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Qaisar Sultana (Sr. Citizen) and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Br College of Education & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Sanskriti College of Education & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Pt. Deendayal Dangrolia Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

M/S Fcml Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Platinex Db Valves India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Jabir Hussain Trading as M/S Hakeem Hotel Vs Ali Asgar Trading as M/S. Hakeem Restaurant

Kamlesh Prasad Yadav Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Uttam Kumar & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Mannu Singh Yadav and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Balbir Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi