Dismissed¶¶65

Mohd Sageer v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/1351/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vending; Article 226 writ petition; Certificate of Vending (CoV); provisional CoV URI 7410649; mobile vendor; vending per CoV conditions; Nehru Place; no-hawking and no-vending zone; Astha Kunj Road; Satyam Cinema; Nehru Place metro station; pavement encroachment; garbage and hygiene obligations; cancellation of CoV; removal of vendor; MCD enforcement role; local police role; LPA 623/2016 Federation of Nehru Place Association (Regd.) v. SDMC; Bachchu Singh; Manushi Sangathan; LPA No.766/2008; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 S.3(3); W.P.(C) 19499/2025 Rahul Kumar Bharti v. MCD; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Petitioner's prayer was rejected and the MCD was directed to take necessary steps in accordance with law. ¶¶65

Mohd Sageer Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Petitioner's prayer was rejected and the MCD was directed to take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, a street vendor selling eatables (momos and rolls) from his vending cart and holding a provisional Certificate of Vending, is entitled to a writ under Article 226 directing the Respondents to allow him to peacefully vend at his vending site near the pavement of Astha Kunj Road, opposite Satyam Cinema, Nehru Place, Ward S-86, South Delhi. +2 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

The Petitioner's prayer to be allowed to peacefully vend at the vending site is rejected; accordingly the MCD is to take necessary steps in accordance with law, and the petition along with pending applications is dismissed.

¶¶65

Ratio / Principle

Nehru Place area is a No-hawking and No-vending zone, as recognized by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Federation of Nehru Place Association (Regd.) (LPA 623/2016).

¶¶64

Key takeaways

The Petitioner's CoV is that of a mobile vendor and he must vend in terms of the conditions of the CoV; the manner in which he encroached upon the pavement and the road in the vicinity of the metro station, with garbage strewn all across the vending area, is not permissible even with a provisional CoV.ratio¶¶63
There is an absolute obligation upon all vendors, including mobile vendors, to maintain basic hygiene and ensure cleanliness of the surrounding area, failing which the MCD can cancel their CoV and remove them from the vending area in accordance with law; the concerned authorities, i.e., MCD and the local police, have a clear role to play in this matter.ratio¶¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain, order dated 02.02.2026) dismissed a street vendor's Article 226 writ petition seeking protection to peacefully vend near the pavement of Astha Kunj Road, opposite Satyam Cinema, Nehru Place, despite his holding a provisional Certificate of Vending No. URI 7410649 dated 06.11.2021 issued by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (nature: 'Food/snack with gas cylinder/fire'). Held: (i) Nehru Place is a 'No-hawking' and 'No-vending' zone, as recognized by the Coordinate Bench in LPA 623/2016, Federation of Nehru Place Association (Regd.) v. SDMC (order dated 02.04.2018, which had set aside an order dated 12.09.2016 in view of Bachchu Singh); (ii) the Petitioner's CoV being that of a mobile vendor, he was bound to vend in terms of its conditions, and his encroachment upon the pavement and road near the Nehru Place metro station, with garbage strewn across the vending area, was impermissible even with a provisional CoV; (iii) all vendors, including mobile vendors, are under an absolute obligation to maintain basic hygiene and cleanliness of the surrounding area, failing which the MCD may cancel the CoV and remove the vendor in accordance with law, with the MCD and local police having a clear role. Petition and pending applications dismissed; MCD to take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1351/2026 & CM APPL. 6701/2026, CM APPL. 6702/2026

¶4

MOHD SAGEER .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Renu, Ms Mansi, Mr Momin and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Advs. (M: 8851594695)

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS....Respondents Through: Ms. Puja S. Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. for MCD. (M: 9312839323) Mr. Ravindra Vikram Singh, SPC and Ms. Bhawna, Govt. Pleader for R-3 & 4. (M: 9810994987) Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD for R-5. (M: 9910623535)

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 02.02.2026

¶10

This hearing has been through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Mr. Mohd. Sageer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to peacefully vend at his vending site i.e., near pavement of Astha Kunj Road, opposite Satyam Cinema, Nehru Place, Ward S-86, South Delhi- 110019. (hereinafter, ‘the vending site’) .

¶12

The Petitioner is seeking protection on the ground that he is a street

¶13

W.P.(C) 1351/2026 Page 1 of 8

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 06/02/2026 at 13:13:01

¶16

vendor and earns his livelihood from vending at the vending site. According to the Petitioner, he sells eatables like momos and rolls on his vending cart and he is being unnecessarily harassed by the authorities.

¶17

The Petitioner has been issued a provisional Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’) dated 6th November, 2021 bearing No. URI 7410649 by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation. The CoV states that the nature of vending is of “ Food/snack with gas cylinder/fire” .

¶18

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the concerned officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) and police officials are not allowing the Petitioner to peacefully vend at the vending site. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that similar orders have been passed by this Court whereby vendors have been allowed to peacefully vend from the vending site. It is submitted that the same ought to have been passed in the present case also. 7. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Petitioner should be given exemption as being a mobile vender. In this regard, reliance is placed upon order dated 8^th January, 2026 in W.P.(C) 19499/2025 titled Rahul Kumar Bharti v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. .

¶19

On the other hand, Ms. Puja S. Kalra, ld. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of MCD submits that Nehru Place is a ‘No-hawking’ and ‘Novending zone’. The same had been recognized by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in LPA 623/2016 titled Federation of Nehru Place Association (Regd.) v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner & Ors . The said declaration has been made vide the order dated 2^nd April, 2018 in the following terms:

¶20

W.P.(C) 1351/2026 Page 2 of 8

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 06/02/2026 at 13:13:01

¶23

“7. In the case of Bachchu Singh (supra), this court had categorically reached a conclusion that Nehru Place area is a ‘no hawking’ and ‘no vending’ zone. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read as under:

¶24

15. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The basic facts are not in dispute, i.e. both the petitioners claim to be street vendors and claim to be carrying out hawking activities at Nehru Place District Centre. The petitioners claim that they are regular street vendors and thus, are entitled to protection under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. It is also the stand of the petitioners that till the TVC is functional, they should be allowed to vend at their respective sites and earn their livelihood. Photographs have been filed in support of their existence at the site.

¶25

16. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the reason that in case the petitioners were regular street vendors, their names would have found mentioned in either of the two lists prepared under the directions of the Supreme Court by Thareja and Chopra Committees. We also find that in the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, various lists were provided of the persons who were either part of the Manushi Sangathan (supra) or those vendors who had approached different Courts and were granted protection. In case, the petitioners were regular street vendors, certainly their names would have figured in any of the proceedings, which is not there.

¶26

17. Additionally, prima-facie, we are of the view that the DDA (erstwhile Land Owning Agency)

¶27

W.P.(C) 1351/2026 Page 3 of 8

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 06/02/2026 at 13:13:01

¶30

and the MCD have taken a consistent stand that Nehru Place District Centre is a “No Hawking No Vending” zone and they shall not allow any other person to vend except for those persons who find mentioned in their affidavit and form part of the order of the Supreme Court which has been reproduced above and some other persons who have been granted protection by different Courts.

¶31

18. Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 10.08.2009, post the order passed by the Division Bench in Manushi Sangathan, have been filed in LPA No.623/2016, which is also listed today. Relevant portion reads as under:-

¶32

“Item No.55/2009 Sub: Rejuvenation of District Centre Nehru Place, New Delhi F.10(7)/07/CC-XV/DDA

¶33

The Authority also discussed the issue of rejuvenating the Nehru Place District Centre. After detailed discussions, it was decided that Nehru Place District Centre should be declared as “No Hawking Zone”. 2) The Authority also decided that separate areas should be identified and earmarked as vending zones in different parts of the city.”

¶34

19. The matter was placed before the Committee by a note for confirmation. The note reads as under:

¶35

“Item No.56/2009 12.10.2009

¶36

Sub: Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 10.8.2009.

¶37

File No. F.2(2)2009/MC/DDA Minutes of the meeting of the Delhi

¶38

W.P.(C) 1351/2026 Page 4 of 8

¶39

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 06/02/2026 at 13:13:01

¶40

Development Authority held on 10.8.2009 are submitted for confirmation of the Authority.

¶41

(Appendix “A” Page No.2 to 19). R E S O L U T I O N

¶42

Minutes of the meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 10.9.2009 were confirmed as circulated.”

¶43

20. The minutes of the Meeting dated 10.8.2009 were confirmed on 12.10.2009. The meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; Vice Chairman; 12 Members; Secretary; and 20 Special Invitees and senior officers. Relevant portion of the confirmation reads as under:

¶44

“ITEM NO.56/2009

¶45

Sub : Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 10.9.2009 at Raj Niwas, Delhi, File No. F.2(2)2009/MC/DDA.

¶46

Minutes of the meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 10.8.2009 were confirmed as circulated.”

¶47

21. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the DDA, erstwhile land owning agency, and the SDMC, have taken a consistent stand that Nehru Place District Centre has been declared as a No Hawking and No Vending Zone, however, while deciding LPA No.766/2008 a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the LPA directed to continue with the pilot project and the appellant-NGO Vendors of Manushi were permitted to hawk in the area demarcated by the DDA. It was left open to the DDA to examine whether Nehru Place or the said

¶48

W.P.(C) 1351/2026 Page 5 of 8

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 06/02/2026 at 13:13:01

¶51

area should be declared a no hawking area. After the passing of the order by the Division Bench on 17.4.2009, the matter was considered by the DDA in the meeting held on 10.8.2009. The Minutes of the meeting have been extracted. The minutes were duly confirmed. Subsequently as stated in the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court of India, protection was granted in the LPA only to members of Manushi Sangathan and certain other street vendors who were enjoying protection of orders passed by different Courts. The names of both the petitioners do not find mentioned in either of the list prepared by Thareja Committee, 1992 or Chopra Committee. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

¶52

8. In view of the judgment passed in Bachchu Singh (supra), the impugned order dated 12.09.2016 is set aside. It is declared that the Nehru Place area is ‘no hawking’ and ‘no vending’ zone. The municipal authorities shall be bound by the stand taken by them in the case of Bachchu Singh (supra) and the same would apply to the present case as well. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. ”

¶53

Heard. This Court comes across a stark image of the vending site, near the Nehru Place metro station in the photograph filed by the Petitioner. The said photograph is extracted below:

¶54

W.P.(C) 1351/2026 Page 6 of 8

¶55

This is a digitally signed order.

¶56

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 06/02/2026 at 13:13:01

¶57

On the one hand, steps are being taken to make city infrastructure much more convenient, comfortable and hygienic for the citizens, travellers and passengers. On the other hand, a perusal of the above photograph reflects an unfortunate situation where street vendors fail to maintain even basic

¶58

W.P.(C) 1351/2026 Page 7 of 8

¶59

This is a digitally signed order.

¶60

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 06/02/2026 at 13:13:01

¶61

standards of hygiene and cleanliness while vending from their carts.

¶62

The photograph clearly shows that the Petitioner is operating his vending activity in front of the metro station, without maintaining basic standards of cleanliness, with garbage strewn across the road. 12. There is an absolute obligation upon all vendors, including mobile vendors, to maintain basic hygiene and ensure cleanliness of the surrounding area, failing which the MCD can cancel their CoV and also remove them from the vending area, in accordance with law. The concerned authorities i.e., MCD and the local police also have a clear role to play in this matter.

¶63

Additionally, the CoV of the Petitioner is that of a mobile vendor and the Petitioner should vend in terms of the conditions in the COV. However, the manner in which the Petitioner has encroached upon the pavement and the road in the vicinity of the metro station, with garbage strewn all across the vending area, would not be permissible even with a provisional CoV.

¶64

Moreover, Nehru Place area is a No-hawking and No-vending zone, as recognized by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the Federation of Nehru Place Association (Regd.)(Supra) .

¶65

Thus, the prayer of the Petitioner in the present petition is rejected. Accordingly, the MCD shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. 16. The present petition, along with pending applications, is dismissed in the above terms.

¶66

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶67

MADHU JAIN, J.

¶68

FEBRUARY 2, 2026/ dk/sm

¶69

W.P.(C) 1351/2026 Page 8 of 8

¶70

Mohd Sageer v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Sageer v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

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

UOI & Ors. Vs Kasturi Devi

Urmila Devi Vs UOI & Ors.

Attar Singh Kashyap Vs UOI & Ors.

U.O.I & Ors. Vs Ms. Sheetal Arora

Pravin Pandurang Mokal & Anr. Vs the District Medical Board

Lakshay Creation Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 60(7) Delhi

Rwa Dwarka Punarwas Colony (Regd.) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Bhuneshwar Vats Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sachin Gupta Vs Registrar Cooperative Society and Ors.

Praveen Gupta Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.

Randhir Singh Vs Government of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Meena Bazar Street Vendors Hawkers Sangathan and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Hitesh Sood and Anr. Vs Union of India through Secretary & Ors.

Suresh Babu Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.