Rakesh and Ors. Vs Delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.

This petition has been filed by four Petitioners- Rakesh, S/o Sh. Mahavir; Ramautar, S/o Gulfan Singh; Kuldeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Charanjeet; Mamtesh Yadav, S/o Sh. Bharat Yadav who all claim to be street vendors vending at the open space at Dhaula Kuan, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi110021, since several years (before 2023).

¶10

Vide this petition, the Petitioners are seeking issuance of directions to Respondent No. 1 to decide the Representation dated 10th April, 2026 made by the Petitioners.

¶11

It is the case of the Petitioners that their challans prior to 2023 have been submitted to the Delhi Cantonment Board vide a representation dated 10^th April, 2026.

¶12

Mr. Nanda, ld. Counsel for the Delhi Cantonment Board submits that Petitioner no. 4 i.e. Mamtesh Yadav had filed a writ petition earlier as well,

¶13

W.P.(C) 5183/2026

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 21/04/2026 at 12:14:21

¶17

which has not been disclosed in the present petition.

¶18

In any event, he submits that there is a meeting of Delhi Cantonment Board scheduled today as well in respect of similar vendors’ representations. 7. Insofar as Mr. Mamtesh Yadav is concerned, he had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 10031/2025, titled Mamtesh Yadav v. Delhi Cantonment Board and Ors. which has not been disclosed in this petition. In the said petition on 19^th January, 2026, the following order was passed:

¶19

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶20

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the Respondents to conduct a survey and to allow the Petitioner to peacefully vend at his vending site.

¶21

3. The case of the Petitioner is that he and certain other vendors have been vending at an open space near Pillar No. 27, Dhaula Kuan, for the last more than 15 years. In view thereof, the Petitioner prays that he be allowed to participate in the survey and be allowed to peacefully vend.

¶22

4. Mr. Nanda, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Delhi Cantonment Board submits that the Petitioner had approached the concerned authority for the survey belatedly, in 2025, when the survey was already conducted in 2024. Thus, the Petitioner cannot be included in the survey.

¶23

5. Under these circumstances, the only order that the Court is inclined to pass is that whenever the next survey takes place, the Petitioner is permitted to participate in the same and his candidature shall be considered in accordance with law. Needless to add that this Court has not verified the genuinity of the Petitioner’s claims which shall be verified at the appropriate stage, if required.

¶24

W.P.(C) 5183/2026

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 21/04/2026 at 12:14:21

¶28

6. The petition, along with the pending applications, if any, is disposed of.

¶29

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the Delhi Cantonment Board to consider the representations of the Petitioners 1 to 3, and to take a decision in respect thereof.

¶30

The decision of the Board be conveyed to the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 within a period of three months. 10. Needless to add, the Court has not considered the genuinity or authenticity of the challans which have been placed on record.

¶31

Petitioner No.4- Mr. Mamtesh Yadav had a duty to disclose the earlier writ petition and order passed. Since he has not disclosed the said fact, Mr. Mamtesh Yadav is removed from the array of parties.

¶32

The present order shall be applicable only qua Petitioners 1 to 3. 13. Mr. Mamtesh Yadav shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs for the non-disclosure. The costs shall be paid in the bank account of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee on the said bank account:

¶33

Name : Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee

¶34

A/c No. : 15530110008386 Bank : UCO BANK

¶35

Branch : DELHI HIGH COURT IFSC : UCBA0001553

¶36

The present petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶37

W.P.(C) 5183/2026

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 21/04/2026 at 12:14:21

¶41

List for compliance on 15^th July, 2026.

¶42

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶43

MADHU JAIN, J.

¶44

APRIL 17, 2026/prg/ss

¶45

W.P.(C) 5183/2026

¶46

Page 4 of 4

¶47

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 21/04/2026 at 12:14:21

Rakesh and Ors. v. Delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh and Ors. v. Delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.

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

Aditi Randhawa Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Jolly Vs Idbi Bank

Bishwabhbhar Nath Tiwari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Devender Rai Vs Sangeet Natak Akademi New Delhi

M/S Kanika Exports Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Malik Seasoning and Spices Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax

Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Hari Kishan

Asi/Min Rajendra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Samma Praveen Vs Chairman, Town Vending Committee and Ors.

Arjun Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Mohd Alam Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Salim Ahmed Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Surender Kumar Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Mohd. Badruddin Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi