Kumudesh Kumar Gupta Vs Ashwani Kumar and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

Kumudesh Kumar Gupta Vs Ashwani Kumar and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the contempt petition was dismissed and pending applications (if any) were rendered infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed contempt of the Court's order dated 17 August 2023 in W.P.(C) 10300/2023 by illegally demolishing the petitioner's shop during its pendency. +1 more

Court's answer

The status quo order operated with the rider that the petitioner continue his vending activities strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions provided in the COV.

Ratio / Principle

Referring to Clause 6.1.1(iii) of the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, the 'Others' category includes daily/weekly/festival/fair market/temporary vendors etc., as may be categorised by the Local Body in consultation with the Town Vending Committee.

Key takeaways

Except for the recommendation letter dated 04 June 2022, the Court found no basis to infer that the petitioner was permitted to be a daily vendor with a permanent or fixed location.ratio¶¶26
Where a party alleges non-compliance or disobedience of the order of this Court, the burden shifts on that party to demonstrate and prove that the opposite side intentionally acted in defiance of the order.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – disobedience of statusquo order dated 17.08.2023 in W.P.(C) 10300/2023 alleged by COV-holder whose shop was demolished by respondents (incl. MCD): petition dismissed. Petitioner held Certificate of Vending dated 09.03.2022 in the 'Others' category; under Clause 6.1.1(iii) of the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2019 that category covers daily/weekly/festival/fair market/temporary vendors as categorised by the Local Body in consultation with the Town Vending Committee. Apart from a recommendation letter dated 04.06.2022 – which was never made part of the COV – nothing showed the petitioner was a fixed/permanent-location vendor; the status quo order carried a rider requiring vending strictly per the COV terms. The burden lay on the petitioner alleging disobedience to prove intentional defiance. Bench (Sambre & Dayal JJ.) found respondents acted neither contrary to the status quo order nor warranting cognizance under the 1971 Act; pending applications rendered infructuous.

$~26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CONT.CAS(C) 1724/2025

KUMUDESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Advocate with Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocates.

versus ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Advocate for MCD with Ms. Shweta Singh and Mr. Sanjay Beniwal, Advocates for MCD. Mr. Kanav Vir Singh, SPC with Mr. Prajna Pandita, Advocates for R-3. Mr. K. Vir Singh, SPC for contemnors.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R % 14.11.2025

We have heard learned counsel for petitioner.

The present Contempt Proceedings have been instituted by petitioner, who holds a Certificate of Vending (‘ COV’ ) alleging illegal demolition of his shop by respondents, despite an order dated 17^th August 2023 directing status quo in W.P.(C) 10300/2023, which remains pending.

To substantiate his claim of contempt having been committed by the respondents, counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to COV dated 09^th March 2022, wherein the petitioner has been

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 17/11/2025 at 12:30:26

categorised as ‘ Others ’ in the type of vendor. He has further claimed that respondents have recommended the nature of vending in the category of ‘ others’ and further the recommendations speak of the petitioner being categorised as a vendor with fixed location .

As such, according to him, he was vending at the site in view of the recommendations and that being so, respondents ought not to have been demolished his shop, without there being any notice as contemplated under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 .

He further contends that the status quo order currently in operation is in accordance with the COV. A perusal of the terms of COV produced on record, shows that the petitioner was never categorized as a mobile vendor. In such circumstances, respondents should be held responsible for contempt.

As against above, counsel for respondents urges that the categorization of the petitioner quo the COV was under clause 6.1 of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019 ( hereinafter ‘ Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2019’ ) .

Out specific attention is invited to Clause 6.1.1 (iii) of the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2019.

According to learned counsel for respondent, petitioner in any case cannot be termed as having a fixed vending location and same can be inferred, not only from the aforesaid provision, but also from the COV.

Letter of recommendation on which the petitioner intends to

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 17/11/2025 at 12:30:26

rely upon has no basis, because the said recommendation was never made part of the COV. We have considered these submissions.

No doubt, the petitioner holds a COV and he is categorised in ‘ others ’. Rightly so, we are required to refer to Clause 6.1.1 (iii) which specifies the ‘ others ’ category. 11. The said category includes daily/weekly/festival/fair market/temporary etc. may be categorised by the Local Body in consultation with Town Vending Committee (‘ TVC’ ).

Except for the recommendation letter dated 04^th June 2022, we are unable to find any basis to infer that the petitioner was permitted to be a daily vendor, that too one with a permanent or fixed location. 13. Apart from above, status quo as ordered was with the rider of petitioner continuing his vending activities ‘ strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions as provided in the COV’ . 14. If the petitioner alleges non-compliance or disobedience of the order of this Court, the burden shifts on petitioner to demonstrate and prove that respondents have intentionally acted in defiance of the order of this Court.

We are unable to convince ourselves that petitioner was categorised as a vendor having a fixed location, according to his COV. 16. As such, we are unable to convince ourselves that the respondents have acted contrary to the order of status quo in any manner. That being so, no case is made out for taking cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, therefore, the contempt petition stands dismissed.

Pending applications (if any) are also rendered infructuous.

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 17/11/2025 at 12:30:26

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

ANISH DAYAL, J

NOVEMBER 14, 2025/RK/ sp

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 17/11/2025 at 12:30:26