Disposed¶22

Shiv Pujan v. Naresh Kumar

Delhi HC22 Jul 2025CONT.CAS(C)/711/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shiv Pujan v. Naresh Kumar | CONT.CAS(C) 711/2022 | High Court of Delhi | Justice Amit Bansal | 22.07.2025 | contempt of court, wilful disobedience, street vending, hawking, Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014, no-hawking and no-vending zone, Rajeev Chowk, Indira Chowk, 628 eligible vendors, Supreme Court criteria order dated 12.10.2012, W.P.(C) 5193/2012, W.P.(C) 11669/2021, NDMC, squatting, possession, liberty to invoke legal remedies, contempt petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed without initiating contempt proceedings; liberty given to the petitioner to invoke remedies that may be available to him in law. ¶22

Shiv Pujan Vs Naresh Kumar — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed without initiating contempt proceedings; liberty given to the petitioner to invoke remedies that may be available to him in law.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent is guilty of wilful disobedience of the order dated 21st December, 2012 in W.P.(C) 5193/2012, whereby it was recorded that the petitioner's possession would not be disturbed if he fulfilled the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the order dated 12.10.2012

¶10

Court's answer

In view of the subsequent developments - enactment of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, subsequent Supreme Court judgments on the issue, the petitioner's name not being mentioned in the list of 628 eligible vendors identified by the Supreme Court, and Rajeev Chowk and Indira Chowk having been declared no-hawking and no-vending zones - no case for initiating contempt proceedings is made out.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The contempt petition is closed while giving liberty to the petitioner to invoke remedies that may be available to him in law.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C) 711/2022, High Court of Delhi, Amit Bansal J., order dated 22.07.2025) alleging wilful disobedience of the Court's order dated 21.12.2012 in W.P.(C) 5193/2012, in which the respondent had submitted that the petitioner's possession would not be disturbed if he fulfilled the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in its order dated 12.10.2012. Held: no case for initiating contempt proceedings is made out, in view of subsequent developments - enactment of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; subsequent Supreme Court judgments on the issue; the petitioner's name not being mentioned in the list of 628 eligible vendors identified by the Supreme Court; and Rajeev Chowk and Indira Chowk having been declared no-hawking and no-vending zones (Division Bench order dated 11.10.2021 in W.P.(C) 11669/2021). Contempt petition closed with liberty to the petitioner to invoke remedies available to him in law.

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 711/2022

¶4

SHIV PUJAN .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Mr. Aditya Verma and Mr. Birinder Singh, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

NARESH KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Standing Counsel, NDMC with Mr. Akshat Kulshreshtha and Mr. Akhilesh Loya, Advocates

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶8

¶9

O R D E R 22.07.2025

¶10

The present petition has been filed alleging the willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 21^st December, 2012, in W.P.(C) 5193/2012.

¶11

The operative part of the said order is reproduced below:-

¶12

“ 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case the petitioner fulfills the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the order dated 12.10.2012, his possession will not be disturbed, in case he is squatting at the site. ”

¶13

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there have been subsequent developments since the aforesaid order was passed.

¶14

In the year 2014, the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, was enacted. Further, there have been subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue. He further

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

CONT.CAS(C) 711/2022

¶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 24/07/2025 at 11:54:51

¶19

submits that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the list of 628 eligible vendors identified by the Supreme Court.

¶20

Attention of the Court has been drawn to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11^th October, 2021, in W.P.(C) 11669/2021, wherein, it has been noted that Rajeev Chowk and Indira Chowk have been declared as no-hawking and no-vending zones.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, no case for initiating contempt proceedings is made out.

¶22

Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed while giving liberty to the petitioner to invoke remedies that may be available to him in law.

AMIT BANSAL, J

JULY 22, 2025 ds

Page 2 of 2

CONT.CAS(C) 711/2022

¶27

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 24/07/2025 at 11:54:51

Shiv Pujan v. Naresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Pujan v. Naresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakina Vs Delhi Development Authority

Noorani Jama Masjid Prabandhak Samiti through Its President Md. Muzibul Vs Rupesh Kumar Thakur, CEO of Dusib and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Gupta & Ors. Vs Mohit Kumar Shekahr Regional Provindent Fund Commissioner Central

Rani Devi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Prasun Singhal Vs Versha Bansal

Shri Surendra Santoshi Vs Sh. Suresh N. Patel & Anr.

Muliya Vs Arun Kumar Jha

Rahul Gulati Vs Jyotsna Ashra

Noorani Jama Masjid Prabandhak Samiti through Its President Md. Muzibul Vs Rupesh Kumar Thakur, CEO of Dusib and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Gupta & Ors. Vs Mohit Kumar Shekahr Regional Provindent Fund Commissioner Central

Rani Devi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Mr Rajeev Sharma Authorised Signatory of Ms Gdr Finance and Leasing Private Limited Vs Ms Ananya Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 25 Delhi

Randhir Singh Vs Ashok Kumar Verma and Anr.

Poonam Manchanda & Anr. Vs Dlf Home Developers Ltd. & Anr.