Dharamveer & Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors.

$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW / DELHI
nd
Date of Decision: 22 July, 2026
rd
Uploaded on: 23 July, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 9966/2026 & CM APPL.46408/2026
DHARAMVEER & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Mr
Shivam Tiwary & Mr. Saket
Bhardwaj, Advs. (M: 7739506771)
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Puja S. Kalra, Standing Counsel,
MCD with Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv.
Ms. Neha Rastogi, Sr. Panel Counsel
with Mr. Rajat Dubey, Adv. for R-4 &
5. (M: 7289869290)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by four Petitioners, who had filed
their nominations for contesting in the forthcoming elections of Town
nd
Vending Committee ( TVC ), which is scheduled to be held on 2 August,
2026.
3. The stand of the Petitioners is that their nominations have been rejected
by the MCD and their names are not reflected in the final list of candidates.
The categories, under which each of the Petitioners is seeking to contest the
elections, is as under:
W.P.(C) 9966/2026 Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.07.2026
17:44:19

(i) Dharamveer - Persons with Disability
Category
(ii) Juggi Lal - Scheduled Caste Category
certificate issued in UP
(iii) Rakesh Kumar Yadav - OBC Category certificate issued
in UP
(iv) Samsuddin Sheikh - Minority Category
4. Submission of Mr. Mishra, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is
that in terms of the Street Vendor (Protection of Livelihood & Regulation of
Street Vending) Rules, 2017, as per Clause 8 of the Schedule, whenever a
nomination is examined by the concerned Returning Officer, summary
inquiry has to be held and there cannot be any rejection merely on the ground
of incorrect description of name of the candidate/proposer/seconder.
5. It is further submitted that the reasons for rejection has to be given by
the Returning Officer in terms of Clause 8(iv) of the Schedule.
6. Thus, the case of the Petitioners is that in the present case, neither the
inquiry was conducted, nor the reason for rejection has been recorded and the
final list of the candidates has been published.
7. Insofar as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, according to the ld. Counsel for
the Petitioners, there was an error in the name of the Petitioner, due to which
it appears that the nomination has been rejected. Insofar as the Petitioner No.4
is concerned, the proposer/seconder was from a different ward, hence he has
been informed that his nomination has been rejected.
8. It is further his submission that the decision to reject nomination
deserves to be quashed and a reasonable opportunity of at least 15 days or any
short period ought to be given to all the candidates, whose names have been
rejected.
W.P.(C) 9966/2026 Page 2 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.07.2026
17:44:19

9. Ms. Kalra, ld. Counsel appearing for the MCD on the other hand
submits that schedule for elections of the TVCs has already been notified.
The same is as under:
nd
10. In terms thereof, the polling is scheduled on 2 August, 2026 and the
final list of candidates has also been published. It is her further submission
that in SLP(C) Nos. 26311-26312/2019 titled Saptahik Merchant Welfare
Association (Registered) v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors ., the
Supreme Court in its order dated 6th April, 2026 had directed re-constitution
of the TVC itself within a period of two months. Hence, the MCD is trying its
best to proceed expeditiously to conclude the elections of the TVC.
11. She further submits that insofar as the Petitioners are concerned, the
Returning Officer had, in fact, called them in person to try to resolve the
anomalies in their nomination application. However, since two of the
Petitioners did not have proper certification of their respective categories in
Delhi, the nominations were rejected.
12. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the said two candidates,
W.P.(C) 9966/2026 Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.07.2026
17:44:19

who had filed their nominations under the category of OBC, SC etc., are also
willing to contest as general candidates. On this issue, Ms. Kalra was
requested to seek instructions in the pre-lunch session.
13. Ms. Kalra, ld. Counsel has reverted and she submits that after rejection
of nomination, ballot papers have also been printed. Hence, the Petitioners
cannot be added as candidates anymore.
14. The Court has heard Counsels for the parties. Given this background,
it can be seen from the schedule of TVC elections extracted above, that the
th th
scrutiny of nomination forms took place between 11 to 13 July, 2026. The
th
final list of candidates was also to be published on 13 July, 2026. The polling
nd
day is now 2 August, 2026, which is almost approaching.
15. The TVC elections are extremely crucial elections as there has been a
substantial delay in the constitution of TVCs in Delhi, leading to several
issues arising with respect to street vendors across Delhi.
16. The same is also important in the context of the role played by the TVC
for finalization of certificates of vending for thousands of vendors in Delhi.
Thus these elections, in the opinion of this Court, ought not to be interdicted
and held up due to grievances raised by any individual candidates. If such
grievances are entertained at this stage, it may completely disrupt the election
process itself, which is not feasible, especially after Ballot papers are printed.
17. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Saptahik Merchant Welfare
th
Association (Registered) (supra), vide order dated 6 April, 2026 has
directed as under:
“1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have been
heard at length.
2. We direct reconstitution of the Town Vending
Committee as envisaged in the Street Vendors (Protection
W.P.(C) 9966/2026 Page 4 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.07.2026
17:44:19

of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014
by the competent authority as per terms of the aforesaid
enactment, within a period of two months from date of
service of a copy of this order. However, such
reconstitution is not intended for the purpose of permitting
the members of the petitioning Association to resume
vending on Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi but for the
purpose of their re-location to some other appropriate
place for vending.
3. Once the TVC is re-constituted, decision to identify the
vendors and to re-locate them shall be taken at the earliest
but not later than six months from the date of
reconstitution thereof.”
18. The above order also clearly directs that the TVC elections and re-
constitution ought to be conducted within a period of two months. This Court
is also entertaining several writ petitions where street vendors seek their
permanent certificates of vending and the said decisions are now awaiting
constitution of TVCs.
19. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
present writ petition, at this stage of elections of TVCs.
20. Accordingly, the petition, along with pending applications, is dismissed
at this stage.
21. Needless to add, the Petitioners are free to avail of their remedies in
accordance with law after the elections are concluded.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGE
JULY 22, 2026/ dk/ss
W.P.(C) 9966/2026 Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:23.07.2026
17:44:19