Meena Kumari Alias Meena Devi vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 27 October, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 29 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010511492026
+ W.P.(C) 15707/2026
MEENA KUMARI ALIAS MEENA DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aditya Bharat Manubarwala &
Ms. Tanishka Grover, Advs. for
NDMC.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Ms. Meena Kumar
alias Ms. Meena Devi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter
alia , seeking directions to the Respondents to accommodate the Petitioner
near the open space in front of Rivoli Cinema or Janpath Market, New Delhi.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that she is a street vendor, whose name is
at serial No. 597 in the list of 628 persons, who were considered as existing
vendors, as per Gainda Ram & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 715 .
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that she was vending near Regal
Building, opposite Khadi Gram Udyog, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
However, Connaught Place is declared as a No-vending zone. Hence, the
Petitioner ought to be awarded an alternate site.
5. The further case of the Petitioner is that in terms of paragraph 6.3.4 of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 1 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

the GNCTD Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter, the scheme, 2019) , the Petitioner ought
to have been given an alternate site, in the nearest available area. However,
the Petitioner has been allotted a site in Laxmi Bai Nagar, which is 8 to 10
kms away from her present vending zone.
6. According to ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, her source of livelihood has
been taken away. The prayer, therefore, is for allotment of a nearby alternate
site, either in front of Rivoli cinema or near Janpath market.
7. Initially, the Petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)
10993/2022 titled ‘Meena Devi v. The Chairman NDMC & Ors.’ , wherein,
th
vide order dated 19 January, 2024 it had been directed as under:
“...7. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
8. Admittedly, the vending sites fall in the area of Rajiv
Chowk and Indira Chowk. The only question to be
addressed is whether the said areas are required to be
treated as no vending zones by virtue of the 2007
Scheme.
9. It is material to note that NDMC had included the said
areas as no vending areas under Clause 4.2 of the 2007
Scheme.
10. There is no dispute that the street vendors had made
a representation to the TVC, which was considered at a
meeting of the TVC held on 04.02.2009. The minutes of
the said meeting indicate that the TVC had, inter alia,
decided as under:
"15. Finally, after deliberations it was
decided that Rajiv Chowk and Indira Chowk
should be declared as vending areas subject
to the approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The areas around Chanakyapuri Foreign
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 2 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

Mission and area near DMRC stations shall
remain the non vending areas."
11. It is apparent from the above that the decision was
subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. This Court
is informed that affidavits/applications were also filed
before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court
did not pass any order approving the said decision of
the TVC. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, all decisions made by the TVC were
approved in view of the expressed directions issued by
the Supreme Court in paragraph 76 of the judgment in
Gainda Ram and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and Ors. (supra). However, we are unable to
accept the said contention.
12. The Supreme Court had taken note of an affidavit
filed on behalf of NDMC in Writ Petition (being W.P.(C)
1699/1987), wherein the details of the dispute redressal
mechanisms were set out. The Supreme Court has
reproduced the said dispute redressal mechanism in
paragraph 74 of the said decision. It is noted that there
would be a three-tier system. The Supreme Court had
further noted that in paragraph 12 of the said affidavit,
it was affirmed that there would be an appellate
authority, which would attend to the redressal of the
grievances of squatters, hawkers, traders, residents and
other persons by hearing appeals against the decision
of a vending committee. After taking note of the same,
the Supreme Court had directed that NDMC would
comply with the orders which may be passed by the
adjudicatory mechanism as contemplated in the
Scheme. Paragraph 75 and 76 of the decision in Gainda
Ram and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
Ors. (supra) are reproduced below:
"75. In Para 12 of the affidavit it has been
stated that there shall be an appellate
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 3 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

authority which shall attend to the redressal
of grievances of squatters, hawkers, traders,
residents or any other person by hearing
appeals against the decision of the Vending
Committee (Main). Para 12 of that affidavit is
set out below:
"There shall be an appellate authority. On
the forwarding of petitions received by the
Chairperson, this authority shall attend to
redressal of grievances of squatters, hawkers,
traders, residents or any other person. The
authority shall also hear appeals against the
decision of the Vending Committee (Main).
Decisions of this authority unless challenged
before a higher forum or in any competent
court, shall be final. This authority shall be
initially headed by a person appointed by the
Chairperson having at least 10 years' legal or
judicial background. There can be more than
one member in this authority."
76. In the said affidavit, which was affirmed
before this Court on 24-8-2010 it has been
stated that NDMC shall comply with the
orders which would be passed by the
adjudicatory mechanism contemplated in the
scheme and which has been approved by this
Court for NDMC area, unless such orders are
made the subject-matter of challenge before a
higher forum or in any other competent
court."
13. In view of the above, the contention that the decision
of the erstwhile TVC was required to be implemented, is
erroneous. The said decision was subject to the orders
passed by the Supreme Court. However, the said matter
was not discussed. The said decision was not a product
of any adjudicatory mechanism as referred to by the
Supreme Court.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 4 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

14. The issue whether the directions regarding no
vending zones was required to be implemented pending
finalisation of a vending plan under Section 21 of the
Act is covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Vyapari Kalyan Manda[ Main Pushpa
and Anr. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and
Ors. (supra). Paragraph 47 and 48 of the said decision
are set out below:
"47. As per the Act, the declaration of no-
vending zone is to be carried out by the Plan
for Street Vending to be prepared by the local
authority in consultation with the Town
Vending Committee [Section 21 read with the
First Schedule]. At the same time, Clause 3(
e) of the First Schedule provides that till the
completion of survey and formulation of the
plan, no zone shall be declared as a no-
vending zone. This clause merely prohibits
any further declaration of no-vending zones
and does not nullify the existing demarcation
by the municipal authorities. On the contrary,
it tacitly recognises that certain areas might
have already been declared as no-vending
zones.
48. Accordingly, we also subscribe to the view
taken by the coordinate bench of this Court
Hawkers Adhikar Suraksha Samiti (Supra) in
its order dated 05.10.2016 that as an interim
measure, the non-squatting zones declared
under the old schemes shall continue to be
non-squatting zones for the time being.
Hence, the protection of Section 3 (3) shall
not extend to vendors in no-vending zones."
15. It is apparent from the above that till a vending plan,
which demarcates a no vending zone, is framed, the
existing declaration regarding non squatting zone
would continue to be operative.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 5 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

16. In view of the above, the relief as sought for by the
petitioners cannot be granted.
17. Having stated the above, we also note the
respondents' contention that the TVC would conduct a
survey shortly and all street vendors, irrespective of
whether they are vending at a given site or not, would
be entitled to participate in the survey by furnishing
material and evidence in support of their claim of
carrying on street vending activities. Needless to state
that the TVC shall duly consider the same .”
8. A perusal of the above order would show that the Petitioner was held
to be entitled to participate in the survey which was to be conducted by the
New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’) , and her case was to be
considered by the Town Vending Committee.
9. Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by the Petitioner being
W.P.(C) 7158/2024 titled ‘Meena Devi v. The Chairman NDMC and Anr.’
th
in which, the Court, vide order dated 28 May, 2024 has observed as under:
“1. Issue notice.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
accepts notice.
3. The petitioner is a street vendor and claims that she
was carrying on the vending activities at the site located
near Regal Building (in front of Khadi Gram Udyog),
Connaught Place, New Delhi. The petitioner's name
also features in the list of 628 street vendors that was
prepared in the year 2012.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved that she has not been
permitted to vend at the given site as the same has been
declared as a No Vending Zone.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 6 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that in view of the above, the petitioner may be
permitted to vend at another site. It is submitted that
other bonafide street vendors have also been offered
alternative places for carrying on their vending
activities. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the respondents will consider
the petitioner's case and offer an alternative area to the
petitioner to carry on her vending activities.
6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed
of by directing the respondents to consider the
petitioner's case and communicate the alternative
site/area as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
a period of four weeks from date.
7. Pending application is also disposed of.”
10. As can be seen from the above order, it is clear that the NDMC was
directed to consider the Petitioner’s case and communicate the allotment of
alternative site to the Petitioner, within a period of four weeks.
11. In view of the order dated 28th May, 2025, the Petitioner made a
representation dated 5th June, 2024 to the NDMC, in which she sought a site
near Rivoli Cinema or at Janpath market.
th
12. The said representation was decided by a speaking order dated 18
December, 2024 by the NDMC.
13. The stand taken by the NDMC was that the allotment of alternate
vending site was to be considered by the TVC, after it is constituted, and as a
temporary basis, the site at Laxmi Bai Nagar was offered. The relevant
portion of the speaking order dated 18th December, 2024 is set out below:
“...7. That as per the above stated facts, contentions and
circumstances, the grievance of the applicant for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 7 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

allotment of alternate vending site will be considered by
the Competent TVC in accordance with the provisions
of Street Vendor Act, 2014, Street Vending Rules 2017
and the Street Vending Scheme 2019 only after
completion of the survey of the street vendors as
stipulated in section 3 of the street Vendors Act. 2014.
8. Till survey process is completed and for compliance
of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dt.
28.05.2024 you are hereby offered a temporary
arrangement at Laxmi Bai Nagar Vendor Market,
New Delhi purely on temporary basis and subject to
final decision of Town Vending Committee on the
following terms and conditions:
i. This is an interim and purely temporary arrangement
and will not confirm any right on the site or otherwise
etc.
ii. You will not induct anyone else at the squatting site
and shall not deal in any licensable articles.
iii. You will not leave the goods at night.
iv. The permission is only from sunrise to sunset.
v. Subletting in any manner is not permitted
vi. The permission holder shall remain within the
allotted area.
vii. Squatting on any other site shall be treated as
encroachment and violation of the permission.
vii. The permission is purely temporary and can be
revoked at any time without any alternative allotment.
ix. Any violation in above conditions of squatting will
lead to cancellation/termination of the temporary
permission
x. The said permission subject to final decision of Town
Vending Committee”
14. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner had also filed a contempt case being
Cont.Cas.(C) No. 1027/2024 titled ‘Meena Devi v. Mr. Naresh Kumar and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 8 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

Anr.’ , wherein, vide order dated 28th April, 2025, the Court had directed as
under:
“1. Status report dated 9th April 2025 filed by the New
Delhi Municipal Council ( 'NDMC' ) is on record.
Speaking order dated 18th December 2024, offering an
alternative site at Laxmi Bai Nagar, Vendor Market,
New Delhi, has already been passed.
2. Counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved since the said
order was not communicated to him, though the
speaking order had been addressed to the petitioner at
her address.
3. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with liberty
to petitioner, if she is further aggrieved, to approach
the appropriate Court for seeking remedies under law;
since she states that she ought to have been given a
different alternative site.
4. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
5. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.”
15. However, the Petitioner continues to have grievances that she has not
been allotted a vending site in terms of Clauses 6.3.3 and 6.3.4 of the Scheme,
2019.
16. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that allotting an alternate site at
such a far distance would be contrary to the spirit of the order passed by this
Court, as also the spirit of the Scheme, 2019.
17. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the NDMC submits that this is purely
an interim arrangement, in view of the fact that the areas where the Petitioner
was vending have been declared as No-vending zones.
18. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, in similar matters,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 9 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

Mohan Singh Place has also been allotted as an alternate site.
19. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties. Paragraphs 6.3.3
and 6.3.4 of the Scheme, 2019 reads as under:
“(6.3.3) To the extent possible , the affected street
vendor may be adjusted in same or nearby vending zone
and also under the same type of vending as specified in
COV subject to availability of vending space at the
alternate site .
(6.3.4) For relocation from the place specified in the
COV, the TVC shall issue written intimations to the
affected vendor by Speed/ Registered Post to the
Vendor’s Correspondence Address, before the 15th and
30th day after the decision is made, providing at least
three alternative sites in the same or nearest available
vending zone . If three alternate locations under the
same type of vending as specified in the COV are not
available, the affected street vendor may be given the
choice of other categories of street vending. Should
more than one vendor choose the same relocation site,
the site shall be awarded by draw of lots and second
alternative site to be allotted to other vendor who does
not get the chosen site as provided under sub-section (3)
of section 4 of the Act.”
The above clauses of the Scheme are relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the
Petitioners to argue that at least three alternate sites ought to have been given
and the same ought to be near the vending site of the Petitioner.
20. Insofar as the NDMC area is concerned, this Court takes judicial notice
of the fact that surveys in all these areas are already completed and the
vending plan has also been finalised, only the last leg of surveying certain
tehbazari holders is presently underway.
21. The Petitioner’s candidature would also fall within the tehbazari
vendors.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 10 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21

22. The speaking order dated 18th December, 2024, which has been passed
by the NDMC is merely an interim order. Once the survey of the tehbazari
holders is completed, the same is to be submitted by the NDMC to the
GNCTD for finalisation of the vending plan. The entire process is being
supervised by this Court in various matters.
23. In a city like Delhi, nearby vending zones or nearest available vending
zone has to be interpreted on the basis of the availability of vending spaces
and the number of vendors who can be accommodated in such spaces. Under
such circumstances, the allotment of alternate site at Laxmi Bai Nagar cannot
be stated to be contrary to the Scheme, 2019.
24. Thus, the Petitioner is free to obtain the alternate vending site at Laxmi
Bai Nagar and continue her vending activities, as an interim measure.
25. The Petitioner shall be surveyed by the NDMC. Once the TVC is
constituted, the case of the Petitioner shall be considered in accordance with
law on an expeditious basis and a final site shall be allotted to the Petitioner,
if she is found eligible.
26. The TVC-II shall bear in mind the above stated provisions as also the
provisions in Schedule II of the Scheme, 2019, while making an allotment to
the Petitioner.
27. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any,
are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J
DINESH BHATT, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
dj/sm
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15707/2026 Page 11 of 11
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:33:21