Dismissed

Mohd. Ali v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/2670/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought temporary vending site allotment under Art. 226. Court dismissed petition-repetition, directing Petitioner to approach Town Vending Committee for survey per Street Vendors Act 2014. Order fixed three-month timeline for committee decision and survey inclusion.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Town Vending Committee to examine petitioners case within three months and include petitioner in future surveys. Petitioner to approach TVC.

Mohd. Ali Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~17

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 2670/2025

¶4

MOHD. ALI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Bharat Aggarwal, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Mr. D.S. Bhanu, Mr. Chinmay Singh, Mr. Akshay Verma and Mr. Madan Mohan Chaubey, Advs. for NDMC.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R

17.03.2025

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Mohd. Ali under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking temporary allotment of a vacant vending site in his favour.

¶14

According to the Petitioner, he was a part of the list of 628 vendors for allotment of spaces in the New Delhi Municipal Corporation area. The Petitioner’s case is that he was at serial no. 591 of the said list. The Petitioner further submits that he was removed from the no vending zone in the year 2016 and has still not been allotted a vending site.

¶15

On 30th April 2024, the Petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) 6016/2024 . In the said writ petition, the Court had directed as under:

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 19/03/2025 at 12:21:01

¶18

“7. In the facts and circumstances, particularly considering the fact that the name of the petitioner is features in the list of 628 street vendors, which was prepared for allocating the sites by lottery, we consider it apposite to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's request and if feasible allocate any area where he can carry on his vending activities. It is clarified that such allocation would be purely on a temporary basis and would not give rise to any rights in favour of the petitioner by virtue of such allocation.

¶19

8. We request the concerned authorities to consider the request of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from today.”

¶20

According to ld. counsel for the Petitioner, the temporary vending position is not being allocated to the Petitioner despite the eligibility being confirmed and the impugned order dated 17^th December, 2024 has been passed rejecting the Petitioner’s application for a vending site. The said order was communicated to the Petitioner on 24^th December, 2024. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

¶21

“(x) That to deal with the menace of the illegal vending in no-vending zones of NDMC areas, The Hon'ble (DB) Delhi High Court vide order dated 11.10.2021 in W.P. 11669/2021 titled as New Delhi Traders Associations v. NDMC and Ors. directed NDMC and also to the Delhi Police to remove all the illegal hawkers/vendors from the Connaught Place area. Pursuant to this direction the NDMC removed the illegal squatters/hawkers from Connaught Place (earlier known as Rajiv Chowk and Indira Chowk).

¶22

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 19/03/2025 at 12:21:01

¶23

(xi). It was a clear direction to the NDMC for removal of illegal hawkers and squatter from the Connaught Place area which is no-vending zone. It is admitted position that the applicant has never been issued any license/permission by NDMC and he is not entitled to squat in Non-Vending areas.

¶24

(xii) That Later on, for compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 11.10.2021, all the unauthorised vendors except Old Tehbazari and Thareja Verified vendors, were removed from NoVending area i.e. Connaught Place and Palika Bazar. The name of applicant did not find mentioned in Old Tehabzari and Thareja Verified vendor, Hence, he is not allowed to vend at Palika Bazar area.

¶25

(xiii) Since, the petitioner already refused to accept alternate arrangement purely on temporary basis at Laxmi Bai Nagar Vendor Market which has also mentioned in the Court order dt 30.04.2024, The grievance of the applicant for allotment of alternate vending site will be considered by the TVC in accordance with the provisions of Street Vendor Act, 2014, Street Vending Rules 2017 and the Street Vending Scheme 2019 only after completion of the survey of the street vendors as stipulated in section 3 of the street Vendors Act, 2014.

¶26

(xiv). That Town Vending Committee constituted by GNCTD vide notification dated 17.09.2019 for NDMC area is first/initial Town Vending Committee and has been constituted for the purpose of carrying out the survey of Street Vendors in accordance with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019. The power of Present TVC under Rule 13(1) of Street Vendor (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rule, 2017, is mentioned as "This is an initial Town Vending

¶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 19/03/2025 at 12:21:01

¶29

Committee for the purpose of survey and the issue of CoV and it shall ensure that once the survey is complete, the elections are conducted within six months.

¶30

6. That the applicant, in the above circumstances, can only approach the Competent TVC which is the relevant body for issuance of Certificate of Vending and allotment of site, which shall examine their case in accordance with the Street Vendors Act, Rules and Scheme, once the survey process is completed by the present/initial TVC. ”

¶31

The said order is being challenged in this Petition. The ground on which the Petitioner’s request has been rejected is that he was vending in a no vending zone. Under such circumstances, no fault can be found with the order dated 17^th December, 2024.

¶32

The Petitioner is, however, free to approach the competent Town Vending Committee (hereinafter ‘ TVC ’) for issuance of certificate of vending and allotment of site in terms of the order dated 17^th December, 2024, which has been impugned before this Court. If the Petitioner approaches the TVC, let a decision be taken within a period of three months.

¶33

Whenever a survey takes place in the Palika Bazar area, the Petitioner shall be permitted to take part in the said survey in accordance with law. 9. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶34

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

¶35

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶36

MARCH 17, 2025/ dj/ck

¶37

Mohd. Ali v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ali v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

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

Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. Vs Competition Commission of India

Vashim Ahmad Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Savita Taneja Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Rajender Singh Advocate Vs the Chairperson Election Committee & Ors.

Dr Rajnikant Verma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner

Rajan Nagpal Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Banwari Aromas Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt Twinkle Gupta Vs the L T Governor of Delhi and Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Shivashish Gunwal Advocate

Seetu Kohli Concepts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Monu @ Sandeep Vs Union of India through Its Secretary & Ors.

Gurjit Singh Bains Vs Addl Commissioner of Customs Import & Ors.

Jamia Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sandeep Arora Vs Addl Commissioner of Customs Imports Inland Container Depot Tughlakabad New Delhi & Ors.