Dismissed

Vijay Pal Sharma and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/240/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vendors challenged a Town Vending Committee order temporarily classifying them as mobile vendors instead of stationary vendors. The High Court held they had a statutory remedy under Section 11 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, directed them to appeal within ten days with interim protection to be considered expeditiously, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vijay Pal Sharma and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 240/2025

¶4

VIJAY PAL SHARMA AND ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Shagun Ruhil and Mr. Karan Chopra, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Appearance not given.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

¶10

O R D E R % 10.01.2025

¶11

CM APPL. 1154/2025

¶12

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(C) 240/2025

¶15

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking following reliefs:

¶16

“ a. Call for the records from the Respondent No.1/MCD;and

¶17

b. issue an appropriate Writ/ Order/Direction by quashing and setting aside order dated 13.08.2024 having No. 7789 AC/KBZ/2024 issued/passed by the Respondent No.1 along with it minutes of meeting dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P/1 Colly);and

¶18

c. issue an appropriate Writ/ Order/Direction including writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No1. to make suitable correction with regard to the category of street vendors and specifically indicating Petitioners as „stationary vendors‟ in

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 24/01/2025 at 14:56:33

¶21

the Certificate of Vending (COV) and direct the Respondent No.1 to issue fresh Certificate of Vending (COV) to the Petitioners reflecting proper and correct vendor category i.e. stationary vendors in terms of Section 6 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014;and

¶22

d. Issue an appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus or Order/Direction directing the Respondent No.1 to declare the Petitioners are „Stationary Vendors‟ and rectify the same in the Certificate of Vending issued to the Petitioners. ;and

¶23

e. Issue an appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus or Order/Direction directing the Respondent No.1 to not the treat the Petitioners as „Mobile Vendors‟ as their respective Certificate of Vending (COV) mentions their category as „Others‟; and

¶24

f. Issue an appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus or Order/Direction directing the Respondent No.1 to clarify that Clause 11 of the Terms and Conditions mentioned on the Certificate of Vending (COV) shall not be applicable upon the Petitioners; and

¶25

g. Issue an appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus or Order/Direction directing the Respondent No.1 to temporarily permit the Petitioners to squat/vend at places mentioned in terms of Letter dated 14.10.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by the Respondent No.1 or any other suitable place with appropriate directions to other Respondents also prohibiting them from disturbing the Petitioners for carrying out vending work, till the decision of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) so that Petitioners can earn their respective livelihood; and h. Pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. ”

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been vending at Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh at their respective designated places since 2007. On 14^th October, 2021, the

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 24/01/2025 at 14:56:33

¶29

petitioners were relocated to 10 different places on temporary basis and the said action of relocation was kept in abeyance by the competent authority.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that since the respondents did not allow the petitioners to vend at their designated places, which have been relocated by the respondents itself and the same were kept in abeyance, the petitioners filed representation before the Town Vending Committee (herein referred to as “TVC”) and vide the impugned order dated 13^th August, 2024, the TVC decided the representation in terms of the order dated 20^th February, 2024 passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2486/2024 and other connected petitions.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the TVC, thereby, temporarily declaring the petitioners as mobile vendors without assigning any appropriate reasons or without considering any documents related to the petitioners.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently submitted that neither of the vending work, in which the petitioners are involved, fall under the “mobile vendors” category. It is submitted that without there being a proper categorization of the vendors category, hindrance is being created in their work and the same is depriving them of their right to earn their livelihood. It is submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances, this Court may set aside the impugned order and treat the petitioners as stationary vendors.

¶33

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of MCD appeared on advance notice and vehemently opposed the instant writ petition. She has

¶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 24/01/2025 at 14:56:33

¶36

also taken preliminary objection on the maintainability and submitted that as per Section 11 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014, the petitioners may approach the appellate authority by way of filing an appeal under Section 11 of the said Act.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of MCD further submitted that the TVC is a competent committee and has rightly reached on the conclusion that the petitioners shall be treated as mobile vendors on temporary basis and the same is in accordance with law. Thus, it is prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed as not maintainable.

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the contents made in the instant petition as well as the documents on record. We have also perused the impugned order.

¶39

We have taken into consideration the preliminary objection made by learned counsel for the MCD that in terms of Section 11 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014, the petitioners may approach the appellate authority against the decision of the TVC. The aforesaid provision reads as under :

¶40

“ 11 . (1) Any person who is aggrieved by any decision of the Town Vending Committee with respect to issue of certificate of vending under section 6 or cancellation or suspension of certificate of vending under section 10 may prefer an appeal to the local authority in such form, within such period, and in such manner, as may be prescribed.

¶41

(2) No appeal shall be disposed of by the local authority unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of hearing. ”

¶42

Perusal of the aforesaid provision states that any person aggrieved by

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 24/01/2025 at 14:56:33

¶45

any decision of the TVC may prefer an appeal before the authority concerned. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have the statutory right and liberty to file an appeal against impugned order passed by the TVC.

¶46

In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to file an appeal in accordance with Section 11 of the aforesaid Act before the concerned appellate authority within ten days from today. The concerned appellate authority is directed to consider the interim protection, if any, to be granted to the petitioners expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within two months.

¶47

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with the liberty to approach the concerned appellate authority. Pending applications, if any, also stands dismissed.

¶48

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

¶49

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

¶50

JANUARY 10, 2025/ R

¶51

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶52

This is a digitally signed order.

¶53

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 24/01/2025 at 14:56:33

Vijay Pal Sharma and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vijay Pal Sharma and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary & Anr. Vs Sachin Kumar

Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chairman, Special Task Force

Abha Gupta Vs Commercial Senior Secondary School & Ors.

Sar Engineers Vs Assistant Pf Commissioner

Gala International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Sudesh Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-15 and Anr.

Nafis-Ul-Afiin Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kirpal Singh Vs Superintendent Range 118 Central Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

Madhurendra Sah @ Madhurendra Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Rohit Raina Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Subash Bhat Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Katar Singh Bhati Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Alpha Corp Development Private Limited Vs Ms Cfm Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.