Bharat Bhushan vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision:12 March, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 17 March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 11073/2024
BHARAT BHUSHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kotla Harshavardhan and Ms.
Rishbha Arora, Advs. with Petitioner
in person.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, SC for MCD with
Mr. Dhirender Kumer Singh, Assistant
Section Officer.
(M: 9818834444/9718834444)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 10973/2026 (for direction)
2. On the last date of hearing i.e., 17th February, 2026, the Petitioner had
filed an application seeking directions to the Respondent to issue the
Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’ ) to the Petitioner.
3. The brief background of the present case is that the Petitioner is a
visually impaired disabled person who is running a fruit selling khokha. The
Petitioner is 100% visually impaired with a certificate of disability issued by
the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mongolpuri bearing Certificate No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
19:55:26
W.P.(C) 11073/2024 Page 1 of 7

149. In the year 2017, the Petitioner was dispossessed of his Khokha by one
Ms. Shakuntala Devi, who was engaged in the business of illegally renting
and selling khokhas . The Petitioner complained to the Respondents multiple
times, however, the Respondent took no steps against Shakuntala Devi. Being
aggrieved by this and the fact that the Petitioner was in constant fear that the
Respondents may take any action against him, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C)
1333/2018 titled ‘Bharat Bhushan v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
Anr.’, wherein the Court had directed the Town Vending Committee
(hereinafter, ‘TVC’) to consider the case of the Petitioner, as and when it
becomes functional. However, the case of the Petitioner was not considered
by the TVC despite directions being issued by this Court.
4. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a contempt petition being
CONT.CAS(C) 984/2019 titled ‘Bharat Bhushan v. Varsha Joshi ’ wherein
the Court v ide order dated 21st April, 2023 directed the TVC of the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) to hold a survey within 8 weeks,
and in any case, not later than 24 weeks. However, no relief was granted to
th
the Petitioner. The TVC in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 16 January,
2023 permitted the Petitioner to carry out vending activities without erecting
any permanent structure.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 21st April, 2023 in CONT.CAS(C)
984/2019 , the Petitioner collected his Khokha and a request was made to the
MCD for electricity connection for the Khokha . However, the same was
denied on the ground that the CoV had not been granted to the Petitioner.
Even the Police officials are creating obstacles for the Petitioner to carry out
his vend. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Police Authorities as also the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
19:55:26
W.P.(C) 11073/2024 Page 2 of 7

MCD have been harassing the Petitioner and are not allowing the Petitioner
to run his khokha peacefully at his site of vending. According the to the
Petitioner the same are being done as the CoV is not being issued to the
Petitioner despite participating in the survey and specific directions passed by
this Court.
th
6. The Petitioner had participated in the survey conducted on 29 August,
st
2025 conducted by the TVC and accordingly, on 21 November, 2025, the
present petition was disposed of. However, till date the Petitioner has received
no communication from the TVC regarding the CoV. Hence, the present
application was filed by the Petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Court on 17th February, 2026 directed as under:
“18. Ms. Tajinder Virdi, ld. Counsel for the MCD is
stated to be unavailable.
19. Ms. Lalam, appearing on behalf of ld. Counsel
for the MCD submits that she is only a proxy
Counsel and does not have any instructions in the
matter.
20. It is noticed that on several dates, adjournments
have been sought in the present matter.
21. The plight of the Petitioner does not appear to
evoke any response from the MCD. The Petitioner,
who is a 100% visually disabled person, has been
made to run from pillar to post by the MCD.
22. The Petitioner has been in litigation with the
MCD for several years now and despite repeated
orders of this Court, both in writ jurisdiction as well
as in the contempt jurisdiction, the MCD has not
issued the CoV to the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
19:55:26
W.P.(C) 11073/2024 Page 3 of 7

23. Under these circumstances it is directed that the
Assistant Commissioner, MCD, Rohini Zone shall
remain present in Court, on the next date of hearing.
24. In addition, an affidavit shall be filed by the
Assistant Commissioner, MCD, Rohini Zone stating
the following:
(i) The reasons for non-issuance of the CoV
to the Petitioner, despite repeated orders
passed in this regard;
(ii) The affidavit shall also address as to what
reasonable accommodation can be extended
to the Petitioner, in compliance with the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, having regard to the
fact that he is a visually disabled person.
25. Though the Petitioner is being represented by a
legal aid Counsel, the MCD shall pay costs of Rs.
10,000/- to the Petitioner for the expenses that the
Petitioner has repeatedly incurred.
th
26. List on 12 March, 2026.
27. Copy of this order shall be communicated to the
Assistant Commissioner MCD, Rohini Zone through
the ld. Counsel for the MCD.
28. Dasti.”
8. Today, a status report has been filed by the MCD which reveals a
further shocking state of affairs.
9. Ms. Virdi, ld. Counsel on behalf of the MCD submits that the survey
was conducted in the Rohini Zone by the empanelled agency namely, Nidan.
However, the same could not be completed due to the fact that the elected
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
19:55:26
W.P.(C) 11073/2024 Page 4 of 7

members of the TVC had not participated in the survey proceedings. The
survey is, thus, incomplete. Moreover, whatever survey was done has also not
been finalised.
10. Heard. A perusal of the document on record which is referred to by Ms.
th
Virdi, ld. Counsel, dated 6 January, 2026 signed by the Administrative
Officers in Rohini Zone reveals that the name of the said officer signing the
letter is not clear. The said letter dated 6th January, 2026 reads as under:
“With reference to Office Memorandum No,
AC/CL&EC/2025/D-154 dated 12.06.2025, and
subsequent letter dated 24.10.2025 of CL&EC/HQ, for
extension of contract for three month to agencies, it is
submitted that the members of the Town Vending
Committees (TVCs) of Rohini Zone are currently not
participating in the said survey, citing non-receipt of
their allowances. A letter to All TVC members end M/s
Nidan, 6 School Lane, 2nd Floor, New Delhi-110001
was served upon them for completing the survey within
the stipulated period of 03 month w.e.f 23.10.2025 (Copy
enclosed).”
11. A perusal of the above would show that the TVC members are not
participating in the survey due to non-receipt of allowances. Obviously, if the
allowances are not paid, the members will not participate in the survey.
Therefore, the agency cannot conduct the survey and the survey remains
incomplete. Due to the survey remaining incomplete, no CoV can be issued
and persons like the Petitioner continue to be harassed.
12. It was under these circumstances that the Assistant Commissioner was
directed to be present vide order dated 17th February, 2026. However, Mr.
Dhirendr Kumar Singh, Assistant Section Officer has been deputed today by
the MCD.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
19:55:26
W.P.(C) 11073/2024 Page 5 of 7

13. It is shocking as to how when this Court has directed an affidavit to be
filed by the Assistant Commissioner, MCD and was directed to be present in
Court, the MCD continues to deal with this issue in a callous manner.
14. The status report which has been filed by the MCD and has been signed
by Mr. Rahul Panwar, Assistant Commissioner, MCD does not give any
reasons as to why the members of TVC did not participate in the survey.
Moreover, there are no timelines given by the MCD as to when the survey is
to be completed. The MCD appears to be working in the most dysfunctional
manner.
15. Under these circumstances, the Court has no option but to direct the
Commissioner, MCD to remain physically present in the Court at 10:30 AM
on the next date of hearing.
16. In the meantime, since the Petitioner has participated in the survey, it
is directed that his vend shall not be hampered or obstructed in any manner
by the MCD or the Delhi Police.
17. The costs which were imposed on the last date have not been paid and
the reasons given thereto by the MCD are as under:
“With respect to the costs of Rs.10,000/- directed by this
Hon’ble Court, the answering Respondent most
respectfully seeks liberty to place the matter before the
competent authority for appropriate directions as the
Order dated 7.02.2026 has been obtained with
suppression and concealment of true and correct facts
and thus, Petitioner deserves no costs for misleading this
Hon’ble Court”
18. In view of the above, the costs is increased to Rs. 20,000/- which shall
be paid to the Petitioner within a period of one week by the MCD.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
19:55:26
W.P.(C) 11073/2024 Page 6 of 7

th
19. List on 9 April, 2026 in the Supplementary List.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MADHU JAIN, J.
MARCH 12, 2026/ b/ck
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
19:55:26
W.P.(C) 11073/2024 Page 7 of 7