Rahul Bajaj v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/532/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vending / tehbazari dispute before Delhi High Court; Article 226 writ petition by vendor Rahul Bajaj against MCD harassment and interference at vending site no. 1512956, Dwarka-C, Najafgarh Zone, South West Delhi; MCD demand for vending documents; directions to appear before Assistant Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone; reasoned order within two months; rights and remedies left open; petition disposed (not decided); exemption application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Exemption application (CM APPL. 2677/2026) allowed subject to all just exceptions; writ petition disposed of with directions that the Petitioner appear before the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone, submit all requisite documents, and receive a reasoned order within two months; all rights and remedies of the Petitioner left open. ¶¶21

Rahul Bajaj Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondents should be restrained from interfering with and harassing the Petitioner in respect of his vending site bearing no. 1512956, near Sector 21, Metro Station Entry Gate, Dwarka-C, Najafgarh Zone, South West Delhi. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

All rights and remedies of the Petitioner were left open; the petition was disposed of on these directions rather than by final adjudication of the restraint claim.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Exemption application CM APPL. 2677/2026 allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

The Petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone and submit all the requisite documents.ratio¶¶18
After perusing the requisite documents and hearing the Petitioner, a reasoned order shall be passed by the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone, and the matter shall be decided within a period of two months.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain, JJ.), Order dated 15.01.2026 in W.P.(C) 532/2026: Petitioner Rahul Bajaj, claiming to be a valid tehbazari receipt holder vending since June 2023 at vending site no. 1512956 near Sector 21 Metro Station Entry Gate, Dwarka-C, Najafgarh Zone, South West Delhi, sought restraint against interference and harassment by MCD and another Respondent under Article 226. MCD contended the Petitioner had failed to furnish requisite documents despite repeated calls. The Court did not finally adjudicate the claim: it allowed the exemption application, directed the Petitioner to appear before the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone with all requisite documents, and directed that a reasoned order be passed and the matter decided within two months, leaving all rights and remedies of the Petitioner open. Petition disposed of in these terms along with all pending applications.

¶1

$~51

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 532/2026 & CM APPL. 2677/2026 RAHUL BAJAJ .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Zahid Hanief & Mr. Sonu Lonrai, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta, Standing Counsel, MCD Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel, GNCTD and Ms. Purnima Jain & Mr. Madhur, Advs. for R-2.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶8

O R D E R % 15.01.2026

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶10

CM APPL. 2677/2026 (for exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 532/2026

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Mr. Rahul Bajaj under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking restraint order against the Respondents from interference and harassment of Petitioner in respect of his vending site bearing no. 1512956, near Sector 21, Metro Station Entry Gate, Dwarka-C, Najafgarh Zone, South West Delhi (hereinafter, ‘vending site’) .

¶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 19/01/2026 at 13:06:04

¶16

The case of the Petitioner is that he has been peacefully vending from the vending site since June, 2023 and is a valid tehbazari receipt holder. He is unnecessarily being harassed by the Respondents with the intent to remove the Petitioner from the vending site. The photographs of the vending site have also been placed on record by the Petitioner.

¶17

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1- Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) submits that the MCD has repeatedly called upon the Petitioner to furnish the requisite documents, however, the Petitioner has failed to do.

¶18

Heard ld. Counsels for the parties. Let the Petitioner appear before the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone and submit all the requisite documents.

¶19

After perusing the requisite documents and hearing the Petitioner, a reasoned order shall be passed by the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone. The same shall be decided within a period of two months.

¶20

All rights and remedies of the Petitioner are left open.

¶21

The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶22

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

MADHU JAIN, J

JANUARY 15, 2026

Rahul/sm

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 19/01/2026 at 13:06:04

Rahul Bajaj v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Bajaj v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Nord Anglia Education Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int. Tax 2(2) (2), New Delhi

Ruchika Tanwar Vs the Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

M/S Kanti Prashad Mittal Vs Union of India through Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways through Govt. of Assam, PWD

Anmol Enterprises Vs Superintendent, Range -90, Division Palam, Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate and Ors.

India Power Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar

Dharamvir Singh & Ors. Vs the Nav Jagriti Cghs Ltd. through Its President / Secretary

Mohd Naiem Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Subrata Roy & Anr. Vs Nav Sansad Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Anr.

Goli Finance Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Meag Singh Vs Delhi Cantonment Board and Ors.

Krishna Capfin Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.