Sunita Devi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/6429/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

street vendor; Certificate of Vending; CoV URI No.2459556; 'Others' category; mobile vend versus stationary vend; vending obstruction; Delhi Police; MCD; GNCTD; Gandhi Market Chowk; opposite police booth; West Sagarpur; Najafgarh Zone Ward S-31; Market Association; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; directions to allow peaceful vending; no obstruction at market entry; mobile cart; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued: the Petitioner is to operate her vend as a mobile vend (either as a mobile cart or in some other form), ensure that no obstruction is caused at the entry of Gandhi Market, and, subject thereto and to her adherence to the terms and conditions of the CoV, her vending activities shall not be disturbed; petition and pending applications disposed of. ¶¶43

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, a street vendor holding a Certificate of Vending, may peacefully vend at Gandhi Market Chowk, West Sagarpur, without obstruction by Delhi Police and MCD officials. +1 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

The Petitioner shall also ensure that no obstruction is caused at the entry of the Gandhi Market, in any manner whatsoever.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner's CoV is under the category 'Others', and therefore she has to operate as a mobile vendor.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

The Petitioner's operation from a temporary stationary vend would be contrary to the terms and conditions of her CoV.ratio¶¶35
It is directed that the Petitioner shall operate her vend as a mobile vend, either as a mobile cart or in some other form.ratio¶¶36
Subject to the aforesaid directions and subject to the Petitioner adhering to the terms and conditions of her CoV, her vending activities shall not be disturbed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 6429/2026 (High Court of Delhi, decided 20-07-2026; Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahanjan JJ.; oral judgment authored by Prathiba M. Singh, J.). Sunita Devi, a street vendor selling clothes and apparel for several years at Gandhi Market Chowk, opposite the police booth, West Sagarpur, Najafgarh Zone, Ward S-31, holds a Certificate of Vending bearing URI No.2459556 under the category 'Others'. She complained of repeated obstruction by Delhi Police and MCD officials; the MCD responded that it had not interfered and that any obstruction appeared caused by the Market Association. The Court found that an 'Others'-category CoV requires operation as a mobile vendor and that her temporary stationary vend was contrary to the CoV's terms and conditions; her counsel consented to conversion. The Court directed her to operate as a mobile vend (cart or other form), to ensure no obstruction at the Gandhi Market entrance, and held that subject thereto and to adherence to the CoV's terms her vending activities shall not be disturbed. Petition and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~39

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 20^th July, 2026 Uploaded on: 21^st July, 2026

¶4

+ W.P.(C) 6429/2026

¶5

SUNITA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya, Mr. Vipin Kumar, Mr. Anjani Kr. Mishra, Ms. Pralika Chakraborty, Mr. Fareeduddin & Ms. Srejal Mishra, Advs. (M: 8699723746) Versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Through: Ms. Meherunnisa A. Jaitley & Mr. Aryan Tyagi, Advs. for R-1 & 4. (M: 9717100486) Mr. Chiranjiv Kumar, Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang, Advs. with SI Nitesh PS Sagarpur for R-2 & 3. (M: 8730027929) Ms. Urvi Mohan, Panel Counsel for GNCTD.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶10

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Ms. Sunita Devi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to peacefully vend from the vending

¶13

W.P.(C) 6429/2026

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:2 1.07.2026 18:07:10

¶16

site i.e., on the open space, Gandhi Market Chowk, opposite police booth, West Sagarpur Najafgarh Zone, Ward S-31, New Delhi (hereinafter, the vending site’) .

¶17

The case of the Petitioner is that she is a street vendor who has been vending from the vending site for several years.

¶18

The Petitioner has been issued a Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘ CoV’ ) bearing URI No.2459556 under the category of ‘Others’ for vending at Najafgarh Zone, Ward- S-31.

¶19

The Petitioner is running a small vend from the vending site, where she sells clothes, apparel, and other similar items.

¶20

The photograph of Petitioner’s vend is set out below:

¶21

W.P.(C) 6429/2026

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:2 1.07.2026 18:07:10

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:2 1.07.2026 18:07:10

¶27

W.P.(C) 6429/2026

¶28

The grievance of the Petitioner is that she is not being allowed to

¶29

Page 4 of 6

¶30

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:2 1.07.2026 18:07:10

¶31

W.P.(C) 6429/2026

¶32

peacefully vend from the vending site and her business activities are being repeatedly obstructed by the concerned officials of the Delhi Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) , despite having a CoV . 8. On 13th July, 2026, Ms. Meherunnisa A. Jaitely, ld. Counsel for the MCD was requested to accept notice in the matter and was directed to seek instructions.

¶33

Today, ld. Counsel for the MCD has placed on record certain photographs showing that the Petitioner’s vending site is situated at the entrance of Gandhi Market. According to her, the MCD has not interfered with the Petitioner's vending activities, and any obstruction or disturbance appears to have been caused by the Market Association.

¶34

Heard. After having perused the record, it is clear that the CoV of the Petitioner is under the category of ‘Others’ . Thus, the Petitioner has to operate as a mobile vendor.

¶35

However, the Petitioner is operating from a temporary stationary vend, which would be contrary to the terms and conditions of the CoV . 12. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that his client is willing to convert her vend into mobile vend.

¶36