Sunita & Ors. Vs Town Vending Committee (Ndmc) and Anr.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of directions to the respondent/New Delhi Municipal Corporation (‘ NDMC’ ) to include them in the survey as they were squatting at Labour Camp, Humayun Road, Khan Market, New Delhi, which was conducted by the Town Vending Committee (‘ TVC’ ) under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019 ( hereinafter referred as ‘ Scheme of 2019’ ).

¶16

It is the case of the petitioners, that they have been vending on or before 2007 and, as on the date of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, 2014 , they were very much in existence as vendors, which prompted them to participate in the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 07/08/2025 at 12:48:35

¶19

earlier survey.

¶20

According to petitioners, the photographs on record would depict that, at the place mentioned in the petition, they were in fact vending, and the copies of challans placed on record substantially establish their claim of either squatting or vending at the said place, as has been claimed in the petition.

¶21

In the aforesaid background, the contentions are that when survey was conducted, petitioners were driven out from the area, and they were not included in the survey, and as such, they are entitled for directions in view of the aforesaid evidence available in their favour.

¶22

As against the above, counsel appearing for respondent/NDMC has tried to establish from the challans that the same cannot be accepted as genuine, as according to him, each book contains about 15 receipts / challans, and from the very same book, a number of slips / challans have been issued in favour of petitioners, which speaks of challans not being issued by the respondent/NDMC.

¶23

Apart from above, the name of parties as are reflected in challans are claimed to be not matching with the claims made in the petition, having regard to the details of petitioners in the cause title.

¶24

Further contentions is that the photographs do not support the case of petitioners, as the photographs placed on record would depict that it’s only for the purpose of collecting and creating evidence; the photographs were placed on record in support of the prayer.

¶25

We have considered the rival claims.

¶26

The fact remains that the petition involves a serious disputed question of facts, not only with regard to the identity of petitioners being unauthorised vendors operating since 2007 onwards, but also 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 07/08/2025 at 12:48:35

¶29

photographs cannot be said to support the case of petitioners, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for respondent.

¶30

Apart from above, the fact remains that a perusal of various challans / receipts appears to be in different names than that from names which are reflected in the cause title of the petition, and as such, it is difficult to rely on these receipts to infer that the petitioners were squatting or vending at the relevant site.

¶31

In the aforesaid background and having regard to the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that no case for causing interreference in extraordinary jurisdiction is made out,

¶32

The petition as such stands dismissed along with the pending application.

¶33

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶34

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶35

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶36

AUGUST 5, 2025/sm/tk

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 07/08/2025 at 12:48:35

Sunita & Ors. v. Town Vending Committee (Ndmc) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita & Ors. v. Town Vending Committee (Ndmc) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mrs Rajlakshmi Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs Pankaj Shakya

M/S Nrs Catering Unit Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indira Menon Vs Delhi Police Licensing Department

Lt Col Samir Kumar Singh Vs Army Group Insurance Fund and Ors.

Manisha Sejwal Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr.

Samast Jawala Heri Gaon Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Narender Rana & Ors. Vs State & Ors.

Kapil and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Col M P Wadwa and Ors. Vs the Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Union of India Vs Viney Mohindroo

Ankit Chaurasia Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Devendra Kumar Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.