Disposed

Sumit Chaudhary v. Municipal Corporation of Delh and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/776/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A certified street vendor challenged interference by police and municipal officials at his vending site in Vasant Kunj. The court held that absent an allotted site he must be treated as a mobile vendor pending the TVC survey, and directed respondents not to interfere so long as he complies with the COV terms and applicable laws.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioner's vending activities, subject to compliance with COV terms and applicable laws; pending applications disposed.

Sumit Chaudhary Vs Municipal Corporation of Delh and Ors. — Delhi HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~22

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 776/2023 CM APPL. 32881/2023 CM APPL. 46361/2023

¶4

SUMIT CHAUDHARY

¶5

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Mr. Bibhuti Bhushan Mishra, Mr. Dipak Raj, Ms. Tripti Juyal, Ms. Renu and Ms. Shivani Verma, Advs.

¶6

Versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS

¶8

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC with Mr. Manoviraj Singh, Adv. for MCD. SI Upendar Singh, PS V.K. South.

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R % 10.04.2024

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as

¶12

under:-

¶13

“I. Pass an Order directing the respondents to ensure that that the petitioner is allowed to peacefully vend in terms of the vending certificate issued to him on his vending site i.e., near Power House D2, Vasant Kunj, South Zone 11 Ward: S-69, without any hindrance being caused by any public official.

¶14

II. Pass an order directing the SHO, PS Vasant Kunj (South) to ensure that the petitioner shall not be forcefully removed from his vending site by the Nagender Singh, Head Constable (Respondent No. 5) and or any other Police official.

¶15

III. Pass an order directing to the respondent no. 1 i.e.,

¶16

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 16/04/2024 at 12:05:19

¶17

Commissioner of Police to take action against the erring police officials of the PS Vasant Kunj (South) and act on the complaints made by the petitioner herein as detailed in the present petition..”

¶18

The petitioner has been issued a Certification of Vending ( COV ) which indicates the vending area as South Zone, Ward- S-69. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have a Tehbazari license for vending from a fixed site. Thus, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the COV, the petitioner is proscribed from vending at a particular place for more than 30 minutes or any such time as may be determined by the Town Vending Committee ( TVC ).

¶19

The petitioner has also sought a direction that he be not removed from his vending site.

¶20

We are not persuaded to accept the same.

¶21

Admittedly, no specific site was allotted to the petitioner. The TVC is required to conduct a survey and NDMC is required to prepare a vending plan in terms of Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014 in consultation with the TVC. Thus, till a decision is taken by the TVC, the petitioner is required to be considered as “Mobile Vendor” .

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that they would have no objection if the petitioner carries on the vending activities, subject to the same being strictly in accordance with the COV and in compliance with other applicable laws.

¶23

In view of the above, we dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents not to interdict or interfere with the petitioner’s vending activities, subject to the petitioner complying with the terms and conditions

¶24

¶25

of the COV as well as other applicable laws.

¶26

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶27

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶28

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶29

APRIL 10, 2024/r

¶30

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶31

Sumit Chaudhary v. Municipal Corporation of Delh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Chaudhary v. Municipal Corporation of Delh 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

Susheel Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Susheel Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Mamta Agarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) 28 Delhi & Anr.

Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs Acit Central CIRCLE-25 Delhi

Mohan Chauhan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Dulal Ghosh & Ors. Vs Mother Diary Fruit and Vegetable Private Limited

Salim Ahmed Vs Talagang Co-Operative Group Housingh Society and Anr.

M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & Anr.

Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Skywood Interior Solutions

Avinash Sachdeva (Prop) M/S Dimple Lodge Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.(Mtnl)

Rupabh Sethi & Ors. Vs Secretary (Education), Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs M/S. Sck Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Dinesh Yadav Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Ram Karan Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Ors.