Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs Shri Sanjeev Khirwar And Ors

$~111
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

+ CONT.CAS(C) 286/2026 and CM APPL.11384/2026
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Swagata Gupta, Mr. Kamlesh Kr.
Mishra, Mr. Piyush Singh, Ms. Mansi
and Mr. Aakash Tiwari, Advocates.
versus

SHRI SANJEEV KHIRWAR AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj K. Shharma, Addl.
Standing Counsel for MCD.
Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms.
Laqshyaa Saluja, Advocates for
PWD.
Ms. Akansksha Gupta, SPC along
with Ms. Priya, Advocates for R-7, 8
and 9 (UOI).
SI Naveen, PS Kashmere Gate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the directions
contained in the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) 12827/2023. The
operative directions therein are as under:-
“8. In view of the foregoing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, limits the relief in the present writ petition, to a direction to the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to permit the above-mentioned street
vendor, to continue to vend within City-SP Zone, Ward-83-N , strictly and
scrupulously in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said
certificate of vending.
9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is partly allowed and the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to permit the abovementioned
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 286/2026 Page 1 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
13:18:52

street vendor, to vend within his respective zone, subject to the terms and
conditions as specified in the certificate of vending, without any let or
hindrance.”
2. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that in terms of
aforesaid directions, the petitioner is entitled to continue vending within
City-SP Zone, Ward-83-N. However, the bone of contention between the
parties pertains to the following stipulation in the vending certificate:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since vending by the
petitioner involves use of gas cylinder / fire, he be exempted from the
aforesaid stipulation.
4. The same is, however, seriously disputed by the learned counsel for

the respondents, who submits that the said contention / insistence of the
petitioner is at variance with the directions contained in the order dated
10.10.2023 (of which wilful disobedience is alleged).
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has
drawn attention to multiple orders passed by Division Bench/es of this
Court, wherein, in the context of similar conspectus involving use of gas
cylinder / fire, the Court exempted the applicability of the aforementioned
stipulation (regarding vendor being obliged to move every 30 minutes). In
this regard, reference is made to the order dated 17.09.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) 14387/2025.
6. Reference is also made to the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) 13399/2025. Again, vide order dated 23.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C)
7393/2025, it was ordered as under:
“1. It is not in dispute that petitioners are vending based on Certificate of
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 286/2026 Page 2 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
13:18:52

Vending (‘COV’) under which the type of vending activity permitted is
food/snacks with gas cylinder/fire.
2. In view of the use of gas cylinder/fire, petitioners cannot be forced to be
a mobile vendor, as per the conditions of COV.
3. That being so, we hereby declare that in case of use of gas cylinder /fire
by petitioners, they should not be termed as a mobile vendor.
4. However, we make it clear that if so desired, the respondent may take
out proceedings for changing the type of vending in COV, which is held by
petitioners, so as to have the vending activity of petitioners in accordance
with the provisions of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and
Regulation of Street Vending), Act, 2014.
5. With above observations, the present petition is disposed of.
6. Pending applications (if any) are rendered infructuous.”
7. In the circumstances, since identical stipulation in the vending
certificate has been construed by the Division Bench, the same cannot be
applied differently to the petitioner. Accordingly, in line with the aforesaid
orders passed by the Division Bench, it is evident that condition No.11 of
the Vending Certificate is directory and not mandatory qua the petitioner
and the petitioner cannot be made to vend in a mobile manner.
8. The respondents are directed to adhere to the aforesaid directions and
refrain from interfering with the vending activities of the petitioner.
9. In case of any violation / non-adherence on the part of the respondents
with the aforesaid directions, this Court shall be constrained to take
appropriate action against the respondents for committing wilful
disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.
10. At this stage, however, no further orders are required to be passed in
the present petition. The same is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid
directions. Pending application also stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 286/2026 Page 3 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
13:18:52

11. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive the present
proceedings in case the aforesaid directions are not complied with by the
respondents.

SACHIN DATTA, J
APRIL 21, 2026/r

Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 286/2026 Page 4 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
13:18:52