Disposed

Surender Kumar Gupta v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Delhi HC14 May 2025W.P.(C)/6368/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vendor sought a fresh NDMC permission letter mentioning his allotted site number, as the earlier letter dated 03.03.2025 permitting vending at Laxmibai Nagar Vendor Market omitted it. NDMC stated he was allotted and vending at site no. 96. Court directed issuance of a fresh letter within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Fresh permission letter mentioning site number 96 to be issued by NDMC within two weeks.

Surender Kumar Gupta Vs New Delhi Municipal Council… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6368/2025

¶4

SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Aggarwal. Mr. Kanhaiya & Ms. Rekha Panwar, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Standing Counsel for NDMC with Mr. Akshat Kulshrestha & Mr. Akhilesh Loya, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶8

O R D E R % 14.05.2025

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 29000/2025 & CM APPL. 29001/2025

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(C) 6368/2025

¶12

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner seeking issuance of a fresh permission letter as the site number is not mentioned in the letter dated 03^rd March, 2025 issued by the NDMC.

¶13

A perusal of the record would show that vide order dated 08^th July, 2024 in W.P.(C) 9110/2024 , which was a writ petition preferred by the same Petitioner, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed as under:-

¶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 01/07/2025 at 22:02:05

¶15

“CM Nos.37273/2024 & 37274/2024 (both for exemption)

¶16

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶17

2. The applications are disposed of.

¶18

W.P.(C) 9110/2024

¶19

3. Issue notice.

¶20

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents accept notice.

¶21

5. The petitioner is a street vendor and claims that he is carrying on vending activities from a site described as ‘Gate No.4, Palika Bazar, New Delhi’. The petitioner’s name also features in the list of 628 street vendors who were considered eligible for allotment of spaces in the NDMC area in the year 2012 for the purpose of carrying out vending activities.

¶22

6. The petitioner claims that he was forcibly removed from the vending site sometime during SeptemberOctober, 2016 on the ground that the said site falls under ‘No Vending/No Hawking’ Zone in terms of the Urban Street Vendors Scheme, 2007 framed by the respondents. The petitioner further claims that he has been attempting to carry on vending activities from the said site, but has not been permitted to do so.

¶23

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may now be permitted to vend at any other site.

¶24

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the petitioner was an existing vendor in the year 2012. He also submits that other such vendors have been permitted to vend at other sites. He fairly states that if a representation is made by the petitioner to the said effect, the same would be considered and the respondents would indicate an alternate area from where the petitioner can carry on his vending activities. The respondents are bound down to the aforesaid statement made on their behalf. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to make a

¶25

¶26

representation for an alternative site / area. If the said representation is made within a period of four weeks from date, the respondents shall consider the same and issue an appropriate communication within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶27

10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.”

¶28

Pursuant to the said order, the letter dated 03^rd March, 2025 has been issued permitting the Petitioner to vend at Laxmibai Nagar Vendor Market. However, the site number is not mentioned therein. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

¶29

Ld. Counsel for the NDMC submits that the Petitioner has been allotted site number 96 and he has been already vending at the said site.

¶30

In view of this, let a fresh permission letter mentioning the site number be issued to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

¶31

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

¶32

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶33

MAY 14, 2025 kk/Ar.

¶34

Surender Kumar Gupta v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Kumar Gupta 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

Maanoj Agarwala Vs Idbi Bank

Loconav India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi and Anr.

Sandeep Chopra Vs Commissioner of MCD & Ors.

Rajkumar Sukhdevsinhji & Anr. Vs Idbi Bank

Sunny Jagga Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nkc Projects Private Limited Vs Dcit Circle -16(1) New Delhi

Anshul Rajput Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.

Shikhar Prasad Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pankaj Mittal Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (Cgst), Delhi North

Yogeshwar Dayal Surety of Meena Malhotra Vs the Vishnu Urban Cooperative Thrift Credit Society Ltd. & Anr.

Kk Trading Co. through Its Proprietor Satya Vati Vs Avato Ward 77 State Goods and Service Tax & Ors.

Verto Bizserv Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rus Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Principal Additional Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and Ors.

Tapi Prestressed Products Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.