Dismissed

Ravinder Kumar Jain v. Amit Yadav and Ors.

Delhi HC21 Aug 2026CONT.CAS(C)/1410/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This dispute involves two petitioners challenging the removal of their goods from Connaught Place as a 'No Vending Zone'. The court found no pre-existing vending rights for the petitioners, who lacked licenses, and held that the area is legally designated for no vending. Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt petitions and discharged the notices.

What did the court decide?

Contempt notice discharged and petitions dismissed. Action by NDMC in removing goods from the No Vending Zone found to be without fault.

Ravinder Kumar Jain Vs Amit Yadav and Ors. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~2 & 3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 21^st August, 2026

¶4

CNR No. DLHC010482292022

¶5

- CONT.CAS(C) 1404/2022, CM APPL. 55581/2022, CM APPL. 34815/2023 & CM APPL. 1267/2025

¶6

MAHAVIR JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K.Sahoo, Adv. M: 9212544565

¶7

versus

¶8

AMIT YADAV AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Adl. SC with Ms. Ankita Sarangi, ASC, Mrs. Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha, Mr. Akash Singh, Mr. Ajay Kumar Narula and Ms. Palak Kaushik, Advs. M: 9811398072

¶9

CNR No. DLHC010482832022

¶10

- CONT.CAS(C) 1410/2022, CM APPL. 55711/2022, CM APPL. 34866/2023 & CM APPL. 76310/2024

¶11

RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Adv. M: 9212544565

¶12

versus

¶13

AMIT YADAV AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Additional Standing Counsel with Ms. Ankita Sarangi, ASC, Mr. Anurag Tiwari and Mr. Sahib Patel, Advs. M: 9971382986

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶16

Page 1 of 16

¶17

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

¶18

The present petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the common orders dated 30^th May, 2016, and 01^st August, 2016, passed by this Court in CONT.CAS(C) 453/2016 and CONT.CAS(C) 462/ 2016, respectively.

¶19

By way of the order dated 30^th May, 2016, it had been directed as follows:

¶20

Vide the order dated 01^st August, 2016, directions have been passed as

¶21

follows:

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶23

Page 2 of 16

¶24

Perusal of the aforesaid shows that reference has been made to the judgment dated 18^th May, 2016, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 136/2016, wherein, Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (“Street Vendors Act”), as well as the Rules framed thereunder have been interpreted.

¶25

The aforesaid contempt petitions were disposed of with directions that the said judgment passed by the Division Bench be complied with.

¶26

The judgment dated 18^th May, 2016, passed by the Division Bench in LPA 136/2016, held as follows:

¶27

“xxx xxx xxx

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶29

Page 3 of 16

¶30

xxx xxx xxx”

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the aforesaid paragraph 26 of the said judgment to submit that all the preexisting right holders who are defined as Street Vendors/ tehbazari licensees, shall not be disturbed except to the extent of the determination by the Town Vending Committee (“TVC”) that space/place occupied by them is prima facie not in accordance with paragraphs 2.1.17 – 2.1.22 of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2016 (“Delhi Street Vendors Scheme - 2016”).

¶32

On a pointed query by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners concedes that they do not have tehbazari licences. However, he submits that the petitioners have pre-existing rights, as their names are included in the list of 628 unauthorized squatters prepared by the New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”) as per the directions of the Supreme Court vide order dated 01^st May, 2012, in W.P.(C)1699/1987 , for allotment of spaces on lottery basis.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-7, i.e., the said list of 628 unauthorised squatters to submit that in the said list the names of the respective petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 1404/2022 and CONT.CAS(C) 1410/2022, are reflected at serial nos. 296 and 293, respectively. The relevant portions of the said list are reproduced as under:

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Page 4 of 16

¶36

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶37

xxx xxx xxx

¶38

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶39

Page 5 of 16

¶40

xxx xxx xxx

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶43

Page 6 of 16

¶44

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶45

Page 7 of 16

¶46

At this stage, this Court records the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NDMC that the aforesaid list itself clearly states that it is only a list of unauthorized squatters.

¶47

He confirms the fact that the petitioners do not have any licence or Certificate of Vending in their favour. He further submits that the Supreme Court had passed the order dated 01^st May, 2012, so that a list of unauthorized persons, who were squatting in different areas is drawn up, and a lottery is conducted by the respondent-NDMC for the purposes of allotment of tehbazari rights.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NDMC submits that though a lottery was carried out for the purpose of allotment of various tehbazari licences to various persons mentioned in the list, however, the said process never fructified due to various litigations in different Courts.

¶49

Considering the submissions of the respondent-NDMC, it is apparent that the petitioners have no pre-existing rights in terms of the judgment dated 18^th May, 2016, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 136/2016 .

¶50

This Court is informed that the goods of the petitioners were removed on 05^th November, 2022, on account of them vending in a ‘No Vending Zone’, and notice in regard thereto was given to the petitioners on 06^th November, 2022.

¶51

Even otherwise, perusal of the aforesaid list clearly shows that the said list was of unauthorized persons, and no right was conferred on such 628 persons for grant of any tehbazari licences.

¶52

Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the order dated 11^th October, 2021, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Page 8 of 16

¶55

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶56

11669/2021, titled as New Delhi Traders Association Versus New Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., wherein, it has been noted as follows:

¶57

“xxx xxx xxx

¶58

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

Page 9 of 16

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”

Perusal of the aforesaid order unquestionably shows that the Connaught Place area as well as Connaught Circus have been classified as ‘No Vending/No Hawking Zones’ by the NDMC, wherein, no vending or

¶63

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶64

Page 10 of 16

¶65

hawking is allowed except to the 80 vendors as noted in paragraph 14 of the said order.

¶66

This Court notes that the petitioners do not fall in the list of the 80 persons, who have been recognized by the NDMC for the purpose of carrying out vending/hawking activities in the Connaught Place/Connaught Circus Area.

¶67

Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the judgment dated 03^rd July, 2017, in W.P.(C) 2556/2015, titled as Vyapari Kalyan Mandal Main Pushpa & Anr. Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., wherein, it has been held as follows:

¶68

“xxx xxx xxx

¶69

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

Page 11 of 16

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”

Perusal of the aforesaid judgment manifests that the declaration of ‘No Vending Zone’ as done prior to the Street Vendors Act, shall continue until the issue is decided by the TVC.

¶74

This Court also notes Section 12 of Street Vendors Act, wherein, it has been stipulated as follows:

¶75

“xxx xxx xxx

¶76

12. Rights of street vendor.—(1) Every street vendor shall have the right to carry on the business of street vending activities in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the certificate of vending.

¶77

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any area or space, as the case may be, has been earmarked as novending zone, no street vendor shall carry out any vending activities in that zone .

¶78

xxx xxx xxx”

¶79

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶80

The aforesaid Section of the Street Vendors Act categorically stipulates that where any area or space has been earmarked as ‘No-Vending Zone’, no street vendors shall carry out any vending activities in that zone.

¶81

Signature Not Verified

¶82

Page 12 of 16

¶83

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶84

Thus, given that the Connaught Place area has been considered and declared to be a ‘No Vending/No Squatting Zone’ by the NDMC, which is undisputedly continuing even today, the petitioners herein do not have any right to continue with their vending activities in the said area.

¶85

This Court also takes note of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019 (“Delhi Street Vendors Scheme - 2019”), wherein, in Clause 1.1.20 it is stated as follows:

¶86

“xxx xxx xxx

¶87

(1.1.20) The issue of an Acknowledgement Receipt of surveying of a street vendor shall not confer upon them any right to vend or squat. The permission/certificate to squat/vend will be decided by the TVC in consultancy with the local body as described in Section 1.1.16.

¶88

xx xxx xxx”

¶89

Further, reference may also be made to Clause 2.1.6 (g) of the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme - 2019, which reads as under:

¶90

“xxx xxx xxx

¶91

(2.1.6) The registered street vendor shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that –

¶92

a. The vendor shall carry on the business of street vending himself or through spouse or dependent children only;

¶93

b. The vendor has no other means of livelihood;

¶94

c. The vendor shall not transfer in any manner, whatsoever, including rent/ lease the COV or the place specified therein to any other person;

¶95

d. The vendor does not currently carry a communicable disease, or if a carrier of a communicable disease, provide a certification from a competent medical authority that treatment for the same is underway, and the expected completion date of treatment

¶96

e. The vendor shall maintain cleanliness and public hygiene at the vending site/ zones and adjoining area;

¶97

f. The vendor shall pay periodic charges for the civic amenities and facilities provided in the vending zone as determined by Local Body in consultation with TVC or the Government from time to time; and

¶98

g. The vendor shall not carry out any vending in non-vending zones or beyond permissible days and timings as announced by the Local

¶99

Signature Not Verified

¶100

Page 13 of 16

¶101

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶102

Body in consultation with the TVC.

¶103

xxx xxx xxx”

¶104

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶105

Perusal of the aforesaid clauses from the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme - 2019 clearly demonstrates that no vendor shall carry out any vending in non-vending zones.

¶106

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to a receipt dated 02^nd March, 2009, issued by the NDMC in the name of the petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 1404/2022, which reads as under:

¶107

However, this Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NDMC that the aforesaid receipt is a computer-generated receipt, which any person can avail by going to counter and depositing fees. It is submitted that at the time of deposit of money by any person, the clerical staff do not check any documents as they do not have any link or means to verify the same as regards the entitlement of such person.

¶108

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶109

Page 14 of 16

¶110

This Court also notes that the judgment dated 18^th May, 2016, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 136/2016, as relied upon by the petitioner, itself refers to the aforesaid clauses from the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme – 2016, which are pari materia to the clauses contained in the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme – 2019.

¶111

The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:

¶112

“xxx xxx xxx

¶113

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

¶114

Page 15 of 16

¶115

xxx xxx xxx”

¶116

Thus, even the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment has taken cognizance of the various clauses of the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme – 2016, which are also contained in the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme - 2019, and has recognized that no vending can be carried out in a ‘No Vending Zone’.

¶117

Accordingly, the petitioners have not been able to show any preexisting right. Furthermore, it has come to the fore that the Connaught Place/Connaught Circus area is a ‘No Vending/No Hawing Zone’. 32. Accordingly, no fault is found in the action of the NDMC in removal of the goods of the petitioners from the ‘No Vending/No Vending Zone’. 33. In view thereof, the contempt notice is discharged.

¶118

The present petitions are dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶119

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶120

AUGUST 21, 2026/ KR

¶121

Signature Not Verified

¶122

Page 16 of 16

¶123

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 21:21:41

Ravinder Kumar Jain v. Amit Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Kumar Jain v. Amit Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Late Sh. Darshan Singh (Deceased) His Lr Mrs. Balbir Kaur & Ors. Vs Vanita Arora

Divya Vs Manish Ahlawat & Ors.

Sh Kali Charan Vs Sh.Belam Singh & Ors.

Surinder Singh Tirath Singh Chandhok Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors.

Asha Bhatia Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Pawan Kumar Jain Vs Ms. Seema Rath, Registrar of Companies - 1, Delhi (South)

Sh, Tenzin Wangyal Vs Dr. S. Janakiraman

The White Medical College Hospital Formerly Known as Chintpurni Medical College Hospital Vs Raghav Langer IAS Secretary & Anr.