Arvind Gupta And Anr vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
Date of decision: 2 November, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 4 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010526732026
+ W.P.(C) 16163/2026 & CM APPL. 75711/2026
ARVIND GUPTA AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aditya, Mr. Vipin Kumar, Ms.
Pralika Chakraborty, Mr. Anjani
Kumar Mishra, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja S. Kalra & Mr. Virendra
Singh,, Adv. for MCD.
Mr. Arjun Pant & Mr. Sahil Sharma
for DDA.
Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (
Civil ) GNCTD, Ms. Rashi
Aggarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by two Petitioners under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking directions to the
Respondents to accommodate the Petitioners at site ‘X’, at Nehru Place
District Centre, in terms of paragraph 48 of the judgement dated 28th
September, 2026 passed by this Court in Cont. Cas(C) No. 703/2021 titled
‘Federation of Nehru Place Association v. Gyanesh Bharti & Ors. ’ .
3. The Petitioners-Mr. Arvind Gupta and Mr. Raju Gupta @ Rajkumar
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 1 of 19
Gupta, claim to be vending in the Nehru Place area since 1989. They have
repeatedly filed various proceedings, and the chronology of the same would
be necessary to be captured to consider whether they would be entitled to any
relief.
4. Initially, the Petitioners had approached this Court vide W.P.(C)
5689/2010 titled ‘Arvind Gupta & Ors. Vs. MCD & Anr.’ ( WP-1 ) seeking
protection for their vending activities. The said WP-1 was disposed of vide
th
order dated 13 October, 2014 in the following terms:
“ CM APPL. 11250/2012 in W.P.(C) 6893/2008
Keeping in view the averments in the application, delay
in moving the impleadment application by legal heirs
of petitioner no. 1 is condoned. Accordingly, the
application stands allowed.
CM APPL. 11249/2012 in W.P.(C} 6893/2008
Present application has been filed for bringing on the
legal heirs of petitioner no. 1 on record.
Keeping in view the averments in the application, same
is allowed subject to just exceptions. However, it is
clarified that applicants would still have to apply in
terms of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood
and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 for change
of tehbazari licence.
W.Ps(C) 6893/2008 & & CM APPLs. 5519/2011,
5520/2011, 5521/2011, 20350/2011, W.P.(C)
6894/2008 & CM APPL. 10480/2012, W.P.(C)
1045/2010, W.P.(C) 2545/2010, W.P.(C) 4595/2010,
W.P.(C) 5487/2010, & CM APPL. 10808/2010,
W.P.(C) 5689/2010 & CM APPLs. 11184/2010,
11510/2011, W.P.(C) 8146/2010, W.P.(C) 3891/2011,
W.P.(C) 4577/2011, W.P.(C) 5172/2012 & CM APPL.
10569/2012
Present writ petitions have been filed seeking
directions to respondents not to displace/dislocate the
petitioners from their respective squatting sites at
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 2 of 19
Nehru Place, New Delhi till allotment of tehbazari sites
and to implement the Act No. 43 of 2007.
Mr. Amit Chadha, learned senior counsel appearing
for petitioners states that petitioners are the tehbazari
holders who are functional as of today. He, however,
states that petitioners have not been officially allotted
tehbazari sites.
Learned counsel for respondent-DDA state that Nehru
Place has been notified as 'No Hawking Zone' and after
development the area has been handed over to
respondent-Corporation.
This Court is of the view that the present writ petitions
have been overtaken by subsequent events inasmuch as
the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and
Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act, 2014') has come into force on 4th
March, 2014. The Act, 2014 provides for constitution
of a Committee which is to conduct survey of existing
street vendors and frame a scheme for relocation.
In the opinion of this Court, Section 3(3) of the Act,
2014 clearly states that no street vendor shall be
evicted or relocated till the survey to be carried out by
the Committee has been completed and certificate of
vending has been issued to all street vendors.
Consequently, State Government is directed to make
the Town Vending Committee functional within a
period of eight weeks. Petitioners are also permitted to
simultaneously file their representations with the
Committee within a period of eight weeks.
Upon the said representations being filed, the
Committee is directed to decide the same
expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 3 of 19
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petitions
and applications are disposed of.
Order dasti.”
5. As can be seen from the above, the Court had directed the Petitioners
to file their representations before the Town Vending Committee, and the
same were to be decided within six weeks.
6. Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by Petitioners being W.P.
(C)10462/2016 titled ‘Arvind Gupta & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors.’ (WP-
2) wherein they again claimed rights to vend in the Nehru Place area. The
th
said petition was disposed of vide a detailed order dated 17 November, 2017
in the following terms:
“[...]10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and considered their rival submissions.
11. The basic submission made by Ms.Ghai is that since
the names of the petitioners figure in the affidavit filed
by the DDA before the Supreme Court in the case of
Manushi Sangathan (supra), thus, the petitioners are
entitled to protection, is without any force. Firstly, for
the reason that in fact no protection was granted to the
petitioner and the affidavit filed by the DDA contains a
factual error. This is evident from the fact that neither
any copy of any stay order granted in favour of the
petitioner has been filed. To the contrary Ms.Ghai is
relying upon two orders dated 20.08.2010 and
09.08.2011. One of the orders is post filing the affidavit
before the Supreme Court of India seeking stay, which
would not show that the petitioners themselves were
aware and conscious that no protection had been
granted to them. Another writ petition was filed
subsequently. In the second writ petit ion also, no stay
was granted. Both the writ petitions i.e. first and second
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 4 of 19
writ petitions were disposed of allowing the petitioners
to approach the Town Vending Committee. During the
course of hearing, Ms. Ghai relied on order dated
13.10.2006 of Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi which is
also of no benefit to the petitioners as the learned
counsel has been unable to point out to this Court the
outcome of the suit in which such an order was passed.
In fact, counsel fairly submits that she is not aware as to
what was the outcome of the civil suit and in which
proceedings this order was passed. She is not aware as
to whether the suit is pending or dismissed or whether
interim order is confirmed or vacated.
12. We also find that the affidavit which was filed before
the Supreme Court of India and the final order dated
25.04.2011 passed by the Supreme Court of India
reflects the stand of the erstwhile land holding agency
in Manushi Sangathan (supra). As per the order, the
Supreme Court has noticed that “However, the
Petitioner authority also submits that the same may not
be taken as a concession on behalf of the Petitioner
authority to give up its case of the NDPC being declared
as No Hawking zone or an admission on the part of the
Petitioner authority for other hawkers to use Nehru
Place District Centre as hawking site.”
13. Such a stand was also taken in the affidavit filed
before the Supreme Court that “It is pertinent to point
out that as on date the Nehru Place District Centre is
declared as “No Hawking Zone”. However, by virtue of
various courts orders, several hawkers have occupied
the Piaza.”
14. We may note that in at least three separate writ
petitions which were filed in this court the SDMC had
conceded that the petitioners in those writ petitions were
regular street vendors and had been granted protection
by some court order hence a stand has been taken that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 5 of 19
they would not be removed till a final decision has been
taken in the matter.
15. The SDMC being a statutory body and limb of the
government is bound to act in fair and just manner and
the submissions that petitioners are being singled out
are not correct.
16. Having regard to the fact that in the earlier two writ
petitions filed by the petitioners no favourable orders
were passed, the stand taken by the SDMC and further
for the detailed reasons in Bachchu Singh & Anr(supra),
that Nehru Place is a „no hawking‟, „no vending
zone‟, we find no ground to entertain the writ petition.
The same is accordingly dismissed.
17. It would be open to the petitioners to approach the
Town Vending Committee(TVC) with all supporting
documents, as and when it is functional, and merely
because that they are not found vending at the site,
should not be a ground to reject their claim.
18. At this stage, Ms.Ghai submits that the petitioners
would approach the SDMC and make a request for
grant of site in the Greater Kailash area and she submits
that in case any site is available, the petitioners should
be accommodated. Accordingly, it is directed that the
TVC will decide the claims of the petitioners in
accordance with law based on documents filed by them
and unaffected by any of the observations made by this
Court in this case.”
7. As can be seen from the above order, in the case of the Petitioners, in
view of the decision dated 7th September, 2017 in W.P.(C) 2566/2017 titled
Bachchu Singh & Anr. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Nehru Place having been declared as a no hawking and no vending zone, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 6 of 19
petition was not entertained, and the Petitioners were permitted to approach
the Town Vending Committee. In fact, the counsel appearing for the
Petitioners had submitted that they would seek some alternate location in the
Greater Kailash area.
8. The above order dated 17th November, 2017 in WP-2, was also
challenged by the Petitioners before the Supreme Court in SLP 19192/2018
titled ‘Arvind Gupta and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.’. The said
th
SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 5 February,
2020.
9. The Petitioners’ case did not rest there. The Petitioners had filed
another writ petition being W.P.(C) 3321/2021 titled ‘Arvind Gupta & Ors.
vs. Town Vending Committee-I and Ors.’ (WP-3) which was considered by
this Court and order dated 19th March, 2021 was passed. The said order is
set out below:
“ CM APPL. 10128/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3321/2021 & CM APPL. 10127/2021
Issue notice. Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Advocate and
Mr.Abhinav Singh, Advocate accept notice on behalf of
respondent nos.1 to 3 and respondent no.5 respectively.
In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not
necessary to have the presence of respondent
no.4/DDA.
The grievance of the petitioner inter alia is that the
Town Vending Committee(TVC) has not responded to
the representations made by the petitioners on
09.09.2020 and 27.10.2020 till date. The petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 7 of 19
seek a direction to the respondent no.1/TVC to include
them in the survey, register and issue certificates to
them for vending and to allot them vending sites at
Nehru Place District Centre, in accordance with Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of
Street Vending) Act, 2014.
Ms.Mini Pushkarna, who appears on advance notice
for respondent nos.1 to 3, submits that the TVC is
proposing to meet in the coming week. We, therefore,
dispose of this petition with a direction to the
respondent nos.1 to 3 to positively deal with the
petitioners’ representations dated 20.09.2020 and
27.10.2020, before they start the survey, and pass a
reasoned order thereon.
In case the petitioners are still aggrieved, it shall be
open for them to ventilate their grievances
appropriately.
The petition, along with pending application, stands
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
10. In terms thereof, the representations of the Petitioners were again
permitted to be dealt with by the Town Vending Committee.
11. Thereafter, the Petitioners again filed another writ petition being
W.P.(C) 1871/2022 titled ‘Arvind Gupta & Ors. vs. Town Vending
rd
Committee-I and Anr’ (WP-4) which was disposed of vide order dated 3
February, 2022 reiterating that the Petitioners’ representations be decided by
the Town Vending Committee in the following terms:
“The matter has been heard by way of video
conferencing.
C.M.Nos.5373-5374/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 8 of 19
W.P.(C) No.1871/2022
Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions
to the concerned authorities to allow the petitioners to
peacefully vend in the Nehru Place area in accordance
with the Vending Certificates issued to them without
any hindrance from Town Vending Committee.
Petitioners seek relocation in case they cannot be
allowed to vend in the Nehru Place Area. Petitioners
also seek a direction to the respondents to pass a
reasoned order in response to their representations
th
dated 30 August, 2021.
Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents
accept notice.
Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for SDMC
states that Nehru Place is a no vending zone. He further
states that the petitioners’ representation as well as
prayer for alternative site can only be examined by the
Town Vending Committee.
Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to the Town Vending Committee to
decide the petitioners’ representation dated 30th
August, 2021 for an alternative site within four weeks,
in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has
not commented on the merits of the controversy. The
rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.”
12. In terms of the above order, the Petitioners’ representation was to be
decided by the TVC within four weeks. In fact the stand of the Corporation
is again recorded that Nehru Place is a No-Vending zone.
13. The Petitioners then filed a contempt case being CONT.CAS(C) No.
655/2022 titled ‘Arvind Gupta & Anr. v. Gyanesh Bharti & Ors .’ In the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 9 of 19
case, vide order dated 18th October, 2022, this Court has observed that there
was no wilful disobedience on the part of the Respondents. Further, it was
th
noted that the Town Vending Committee had taken a decision on 17 August,
2022 and, therefore, the contempt case was disposed of. The relevant portion
of the order dated 18th October, 2022 is extracted below:
“....In view of the aforesaid, the directions contained in
the order dated 03.02.2022, passed in
W.P.(C)1871/2022 stands complied with and there
cannot be said to be any wilful disobedience on the part
of the respondents. Accordingly, no further orders are
required to be passed in the present petition and the
same is, accordingly, disposed of.
Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to avail
appropriate legal remedies, if so advised against the
decision that has been taken by the TVCI of Central
Zone on 17.08.2022, on the representation of the
petitioner dated 30.08.2021.”
14. Since liberty was granted to the Petitioners to avail their legal
remedies, the Petitioners filed W.P.(C) 2453/2023 titled ‘ ‘Arvind Gupta &
Anr. v. Town Vending Committee-I (TVC-I) through Chairperson, Town
nd
Vending Committee (TVC) and Ors.’ (WP-5) which was disposed of on 2
April, 2024 in the following terms:
“1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter
alia, praying as under:
“a) Issue a direction/order in the nature of a
writ of mandamus thereby directing the
Respondents to allow the petitioners to
peacefully vend in accordance with the
vending certificates issued to them;
b) Issue a Direction that in case petitioners
are not allowed to vend in Nehru Place area
for the reason that the Respondents stand is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 10 of 19
that it is a No vending area then Petitioners
be relocated to any other area in the same
manner as some other street vendors are
relocated;
c) Issue a order/direction to the respondent
to provide location of Site on the Certificate
of Vending;”
2. The petitioners claim that they were carrying on their
vending activities at Nehru Place, which is now
declared a non-vending / non-hawking zone. In the
aforesaid context, the petitioners claim that the
respondents be directed to allocate another vending
site to the petitioners from where the petitioners can
carry on their vending activities peacefully.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
also draws the attention of this Court to an order dated
03.02.2022 whereby the earlier petition filed by the
petitioners [being W.P.(C) No.1871/2022 captioned
Arvind Gupta & Anr. v. Town Vending Committee-I &
Ors.] was disposed of in the following terms:
“Consequently, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the Town
Vending Committee to decide the petitioners’
representation dated 30th August, 2021 for
an alternative site within four weeks, in
accordance with law. This Court clarifies
that it has not commented on the merits of the
controversy. The rights and contentions of all
the parties are left open.”
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
states that although a representation was made but no
site has been allocated to the petitioners as yet. He
submits that the TVC has also expressed its inability to
allocate any site to any street vendor at this stage.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 11 of 19
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) / respondent no.2 submits
that there is no dispute that the petitioners are entitled
to a Certificate of Vending (hereafter CoV) and to carry
on their vending activities in the area of ward Kalkaji
other than the areas that have been declared as non-
vending zones. She submits that no particular site can
be allocated to any street vendor at this stage as the
TVC-II has not been constituted. In terms of Section 21
of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and
Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the concerned
municipal authority is required to make a Vending Plan
in consultation with the TVC. It is stated that the
Vending Plan would determine the areas where
vending activities can be carried out and the sites that
may be available for allocation. Thus, until this
exercise is undertaken, no specific site can be allocated
to the petitioners.
6. In view of the above, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that directions be issued to
the respondents that as and when TVC-II is constituted,
the same would consider the petitioners’ request in
accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing
for the MCD also submits that there is no objection to
this direction being issued. Thus, it is so directed.
7. Insofar as the present status is concerned, it is
clarified that the petitioners would be entitled to carry
on their vending activities in the area of ward Kalkaji
other than the areas which have been declared as
non-vending/ non-hawking zones. Subject to the
petitioners strictly complying with the terms and
conditions, as are applicable to the street vendors that
have been issued a CoV, the petitioners shall not be
disturbed from carrying on their vending activities. It
is noted that one of the terms and conditions
applicable to CoV issued by the TVC require the street
vendors to not carry on their vending activities from a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 12 of 19
place for not more than thirty minutes or till such time
as may be fixed by the TVC. Since the petitioners have
not been allocated any fixed site, the petitioners would
necessarily have to comply with this condition as well.
8. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations.”
15. The present writ petition has now been filed, in view of the detailed
th
judgment passed by this Court on 28 September, 2026 in various writ
petitions relating to the Nehru Place area, the lead matter being Cont. Cas(C)
No. 703/2021 titled ‘Federation of Nehru Place Association v. Gyanesh
Bharti & Ors. ’ .
16. It is the submission of Mr. Aditya, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners that
the Petitioners are similarly placed to the vendors of Manushi Sangathan and,
therefore, they ought to be permitted to vend within the site ‘X’ at Nehru
Place District Centre as has been permitted to other 90 vendors in Cont.
Cas(C) No. 703/2021 .
17. Further, it is also submitted that the Petitioners cannot be discriminated
against other similarly placed vendors.
18. Ms. Kalra, ld. Counsel submits that insofar as the Petitioners are
nd
concerned, the final order which has been passed is on 2 April, 2024 in
W.P.(C) 2453/2023 . Thus, the Petitioners cannot be given the benefit of
orders passed in separate writ petitions.
19. The Court has considered the matter. Vending in the Nehru Place area
has been an extremely contentious issue and has been the subject matter of
several writ petitions before this Court.
20. A serious fire had erupted in the Nehru Place area, which was
considered by this Court, in a suo-moto writ petition being W.P.(C)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 13 of 19
8430/2021 relating to the fire incident.
21. In the said writ petition, detailed directions were issued and thereafter,
in the writ petition of Bachchu Singh & Anr. (Supra) , the Coordinate Bench
of this Court had observed that Nehru Place would be a No-vending zone.
th
22. The various observations in the final judgement dated 28 September
2026 are set out below:
“[…] 37. Ld. Counsel for the parties have informed the
Court that there are more than 400 vendors who are
presently vending in the Nehru Place District Centre,
most of whom are clearly unauthorized. The only
authorized vendors in the Nehru Place District Centre
are:
a) 62 vendors who are part of W.P. (C) 2183/2026
filed by Manushri Sangathan. There are 5 more
vendors who have filed the said writ petition,
however, they are vending outside the District
Centre area.
b) 23 vendors who are part of W.P. (C) 6823/2017,
out of whom, one Petitioner is stated to be no
longer vending. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners
submit that at present only 22 Petitioners are
hawking in the Nehru Place Area and hence, only
those 22 Petitioners, which includes the Petitioner
in W.P.(C) 9611/2017 , be permitted to vend.
c) 6 vendors who are part of the W.P. (C) 7307/2017
and W.P. (C) 7405/2017.
38. The list of the said 90 vendors is set out in Annexure
A to this order.
39. Apart from the above, none of the other vendors have
any valid vending right in the Nehru Place District
Centre. Especially after the repeated orders being
passed by multiple benches of this Court declaring
Nehru Place as a ‘No hawking zone’ and ‘No-vending
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 14 of 19
zone’. In fact, even these vendors, who have challenged
the matter before the Supreme Court, had lost in terms
of order dated 6th January, 2022 passed in SLP(C) No.
023381 - 023382/2018 titled ‘Manushi Sangathan v.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation’ .
xxx xxx xxx
41. In terms of the aforesaid decision, if the street
vendors are vending in a ‘No-vending zone’, the MCD
or the concerned authority has a duty to assist them in
moving from a ‘No-vending zone’ to a vending zone, so
as to provide the street vendors with a workable
alternative from where they can earn their livelihood.
42. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind that the
TVC-II is about to be constituted and these vendors have
been vending in this area for several years, the above
mentioned vendors shall be permitted to vend at Site X
marked in the map below:-
43. The 90 vendors mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ shall
move to site ‘X’ by 12th October, 2026. It is made clear
that TVC-II after being constituted shall take a decision
as to whether these vendors are entitled to Certificate of
Vending or not and if so, the area where they would be
vending. The said decision shall be taken within two
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 15 of 19
months after the constitution of the TVC II.
44. Insofar as the Nehru Place District Centre area,
except the identified portion above as marked X, the
entire Nehru Place District Centre is declared as a
‘No-hawking zone’ and ‘No-vending zone’ .
45. After 12th October, 2026, the MCD is free to take
action and remove all unauthorized vendors. After the
unauthorized vendors are removed, the Delhi Fire
Services shall conduct an inspection of the Nehru Place
District Centre and file compliance a report only in
W.P.(C) 8430/2021 .
46. The TVC-II shall communicate its decision to these
vendors, who have been permitted to vend at Site No. X,
in terms of Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection
of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act,
2014.
47. The Delhi Police shall render all co-operation with
the MCD and the DDA to ensure compliance of today’s
order.
48. In case there are any other vendors whose names
are recognised in the affidavit filed by the DDA before
the Supreme Court under signature of Mr. Solanki, the
concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD shall also
accommodate the said Petitioners, however, the same
shall be subjected to the decision of TVC-II. The said
vendors can make the representation to the concerned
Assistant Commissioner, MCD who shall consider the
same in accordance with law.
49. In these matters, several applications have been filed
on behalf of the vendors seeking impleadment. The
details of the same are as under:
● CM. APPL. 11085/2022 in W.P. (C) 8430/2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 16 of 19
● CM. APPL. 11125/2022 in W.P. (C) 8430/2021
● CM. APPL. 11139/2022 in W.P. (C) 8430/2021
● CM. APPL. 19730/2022 in W.P. (C) 8430/2021
50. If any of these Applicants are recognised in the
affidavit filed by the DDA before the Supreme Court
under signature of Mr. Solanki, the said Applicants can
also make a representation to the concerned Assistant
Commissioner, MCD who shall consider the same in
accordance with law.”
23. In terms of the above order, this Court has again reiterated and
reaffirmed that Nehru Place is a Non-vending zone. Directions have been
issued as to the manner in which all unauthorised vendors have to be
removed. Only some authorised vendors have been temporarily permitted to
vend in one designated area as identified by the MCD described as Site `X’.
It is at this site that the Petitioners pray that they be permitted to vend.
24. In the opinion of this Court, the case of the Petitioners would stand on
a different footing as both the Petitioners have repeatedly approached this
Court for being permitted to vend in the Nehru Place area and specific
directions have been passed from time to time in five writ petitions and the
contempt petition.
25. In their specific case, orders have been passed by this Court, as
captured above, that their representations shall be considered by the Town
Vending Committee.
26. Finally, their representations were rejected vide order dated 2nd April,
2024, while permitting them to carry out vending activities in the Kalkaji
Ward, except in the non-vending and non-hawking zones.
27. The Petitioners are now bound by the directions given vide order dated
2nd April, 2024 for more than two and a half years.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 17 of 19
28. The only ground on which the Petitioners are now seeking to vend
from the Nehru place District Centre is the judgment dated 28th September,
2026.
29. In the opinion of this Court, the judgment dated 28th September, 2026,
was rendered in the facts and circumstances of those cases, wherein the Court
sought to strike a balance between the rights of pedestrians and street
vendors, while also ensuring the safety of the market and its visitors, as well
as safeguarding the livelihood of certain vendors.
30. Accordingly, a specific site was marked as ‘X’, where only 90 vendors
were permitted to vend.
31. The judgement dated 28th September, 2026 would not override the
declaration of Nehru Place District Centre as a No-vending and No-hawking
zone.
32. In the case of the Petitioners, the order dated 2nd April, 2024 is
already operating, which has been passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court.
33. The judgment dated 28th September, 2026 would not, in the opinion
of this Court, result in overriding of the order dated 2nd April, 2025, or result
in reviewing the said judgment which has already been passed.
34. Accordingly, the Petitioners shall be bound by the order dated 2nd
April, 2024 passed in the W.P.(C) 2453/2023.
35. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners had relied upon paragraph 48 of the
judgment dated 28th September 2026 which reads as under:
“48. In case there are any other vendors whose names
are recognised in the affidavit filed by the DDA before
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 18 of 19
the Supreme Court under signature of Mr. Solanki, the
concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD shall also
accommodate the said Petitioners, however, the same
shall be subjected to the decision of TVC-II. The said
vendors can make the representation to the concerned
Assistant Commissioner, MCD who shall consider the
same in accordance with law.”
36. In terms thereof, the Petitioners are free to make their representations,
and if the said representations have been made the same shall be considered
in the meantime by the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, within two months,
37. Upon being constituted, the TVC-II shall review the representations
and decide the same.
38. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any,
are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DINESH BHATT
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 2, 2026
dj/sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:10:42
W.P.(C) 16163/2026 Page 19 of 19