Jyoti Kumar Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jyoti Kumar Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief on inclusion in the concluded survey; the petitioner was declared free to participate in any future survey under Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 in accordance with law, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to be a vendor in the Sarojini Nagar Market, could be included in the respondents' survey and proper verification carried out. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the survey had already concluded and no verifiable proof of participation exists, the only relief that can be granted is that the petitioner is free to participate in any future survey in terms of Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that there is no other verifiable proof to show that the petitioner had participated in the survey.

Key takeaways

Judicial observation (in passing): in the opinion of the Court, the very photograph relied upon by the petitioner has been filed in other cases as well.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prathiba M. Singh J. and Madhu Jain J., jointly) disposed of W.P.(C) 19354/2025 filed by Jyoti Kumar, a self-described vendor of Sarojini Nagar Market, who sought inclusion in the New Delhi Municipal Council's street-vendor survey and direction for proper verification. On the last hearing the Court had sought NDMC's signed written submissions on whether the petitioner's name was entered in the survey register; NDMC responded through counsel that no physical register existed, the survey process being entirely digitised, and that the petitioner's sole proof of participation was a photograph — which, in the Court's opinion, had been filed in other cases as well. Finding the survey concluded in July 2025 while the petitioner's representation was of 10 November 2025 and the petition was filed only in December 2025, and no other verifiable proof of participation existing, the Court held the only grantable relief was that the petitioner remain free to participate in any future survey in terms of Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and disposed of the petition and pending applications accordingly.

$~17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 19354/2025

JYOTI KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Choudhary, Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Mr. Himanshu Verma and Mr. Mukul Singh, Advs.

versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Soumit Ganguli, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 18.03.2026

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner who claims to be a vendor in the Sarojini Nagar Market. The prayer in the petition is, inter alia, to include the Petitioner in the survey and to direct the Respondents for carrying out proper verification.

On the last date, the following order was passed:

“3. In the representation dated 10^th November 2025, a categorical statement is made by the petitioner that he attended the survey meeting on 20^th June 2025 and that his name was entered into the survey register.

4. To justify the said claim, he has relied upon a photograph of the said date.

5. Be that as it may, we just like to know from the respondent as to whether the petitioner's name was entered in the survey register.

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 23/03/2026 at 11:16:35

6. Let a statement be made in the form of written submissions before the Court, under the signatures of the competent authority, within a period of four weeks from today.”

It is the submission of Mr. Soumit Ganguli, ld. Counsel appearing for NDMC that, in fact, there was no physical register which was maintained in the process of survey and the entire process was digitized. The only proof which the Petitioner is relying upon is the photograph to argue that the Petitioner has participated in the survey.

The Court has perused the said photograph, and in fact, in the opinion of the Court, the same photograph has been filed in other cases as well. 6. Be that as it may, the survey itself has concluded in July, 2025. The representation on behalf of the Petitioner for consideration in the survey is of 10^th November, 2025 and the present writ petition has been filed in December, 2025.

Under these circumstances, since there is no other verifiable proof to show that the Petitioner had participated in the survey, the only relief that can be granted is that the Petitioner is free to participate in any future survey in terms of the Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 in accordance with law.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MADHU JAIN, J.

MARCH 18, 2026/MR/msh

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 23/03/2026 at 11:16:35