Jitender Kumar And Anr vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 29 July, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 30 July, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 10535/2026 and CM APPL. 48666/2026

JITENDER KUMAR AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aashish Kumar Singh and Ms.
Chitrakshi Vedi, Advocates.
(M) 9582804149
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shilpa Ohri, Additional Standing
Counsel for MCD with Mr. R. K.
Bansal, Assistant Commissioner
(MCD-Shahdara South Zone) and Mr.
Shailendra Yadav (AO) and Mr.
Anand. (M) 9871900539
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 48665/2026 (for exemptions)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10535/2026 & CM APPL. 48666/2026
4. The present petition has been filed by two Petitioners i.e., Mr. Jitender
Kumar and Ms. Pooja, who have filed their nominations to contest in the
forthcoming Town Vending Committee (TVC) Elections, and seek certain
directions to permit them to contest in the same.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:30.07.2026
18:30:55
W.P.(C) 10535/2026 Page 1 of 6

5. The Petitioners are vendors and they had filed their nomination forms
rd
in the first week of July, 2026 when the nomination filing was opened on 3
th
July, 2026. The last date for filing nominations was 10 July, 2026. The
th
scrutiny was fixed on 11 July, 2026 and thereafter the final list of contestants
and members had been published by the MCD on 11th July, 2026. For ease
of reference the schedule of the upcoming elections is extracted hereunder:

6. The grievance of the Petitioners is that their nominations have been
rejected and they were not given an opportunity to rectify the same.
7. The submission of Mr. Aashish Kr. Singh, ld. Counsel for the
Petitioners is that the only objection raised by the MCD is that in respect of
both the Petitioners the respective Proposer was a part of TVC-II under a
different ward. Hence, the nominations were rejected. However, it is
submitted that if an opportunity had been given, the Petitioners could have
rectified the defect in the nomination form.
8. On behalf of the MCD, it is submitted by Ms. Shilpa Ohri, ld. Counsel
that the guidelines titled MCD (Election of the Members of Town Vending
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:30.07.2026
18:30:55
W.P.(C) 10535/2026 Page 2 of 6

Committee from Amongst the Street Vendors), 2026 published for the
election of the members of the Town Vending Committee, clearly stipulates
that the proposer has to be from the same ward. Reliance is placed on Clause
13(1) of the said guidelines which is set out below:
“ (1) Each candidate shall file the nomination, either in
person or by his proposer, between the hours of eleven
O’clock in the forenoon and three O’clock in the
afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place
specified in this behalf in the notice issued under rule in a
nomination paper completed in Form I and signed by the
candidate and by an elector of the same ward as
proposer . ”

9. She has also handed over the respective forms filled by the Petitioners,
which according to her would show that in the case of Petitioner No.1, the
concerned proposer was from TVC II under a separate ward, and in the case
of Petitioner No.2, the concerned proposer was also from TVC II and from a
separate ward.
10. It is also submitted by ld. Counsel for the MCD, under instructions from
th
Mr. R.K. Bansal, Assistant Commissioner (Shahdara South Zone), that on 11
July, 2026 when the scrutiny of nomination papers was done, both the
Petitioners were called to the office of the Assistant Commissioner. She
further submits that Mr. Shailender Yadav, Administrative Officer (Shahdara
South Zone), had telephonically called up the Petitioners at the time of
scrutiny for a meeting and they were duly informed of the reasons for rejecting
their nominations.
11. It is also submitted that out of 80 nominations only four have been
rejected which would show that the intention of the MCD was not to reject
the nominations and to give best opportunity to all the contestants.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:30.07.2026
18:30:55
W.P.(C) 10535/2026 Page 3 of 6

12. The further submission made on behalf of the Petitioners is that the
th
MCD had published two lists of the final contestants on the same day i.e., 11
July, 2026 itself, which would show that there is some issue in the finalisation
of the candidates.
13. This position is vehemently contested by the ld. Counsel for the MCD
th
on the ground that in the first list which was published on 11 July, 2026, after
the scrutiny was undertaken, there was one error which had occurred in
respect of a contestant and therefore a corrected list was published on 13th
th
July, 2026. The list published on 13 July, 2026 is stated to be now the final
list and the ballot papers have also been printed. The election is now fixed for
nd
2 August, 2026.
14. After hearing ld. Counsels for the parties, it becomes clear that the
th
scrutiny had taken place on 11 July, 2026 and the Petitioners were aware on
the said date itself of their rejection. Moreover, now the ballot papers have
nd
also been printed and the election is itself scheduled on 2 August, 2026, this
Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter.
15. In similar petitions filed before this Court including W.P.(C)
9966/2026 titled Dharamveer & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &
Ors., and W.P.(C) 9829/2026 titled Mohd Arfin & Anr. Vs. Municipal
Corporation Of Delhi this Court has already taken a view that the constitution
of the TVC and the elections thereto are extremely important considering the
issues arising across Delhi in respect of the street vendors, and accordingly
the same would not be interdicted by the Court. The relevant portion of the
order dated 22nd July, 2026 passed in Dharamveer & Ors. (supra) reads as
under:
“14. The Court has heard Counsels for the parties. Given this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:30.07.2026
18:30:55
W.P.(C) 10535/2026 Page 4 of 6

background, it can be seen from the schedule of TVC elections
extracted above, that the scrutiny of nomination forms took place
th th
between 11 to 13 July, 2026. The final list of candidates was
th
also to be published on 13 July, 2026. The polling day is now
nd
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
th
Welfare 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:30.07.2026
18:30:55
W.P.(C) 10535/2026 Page 5 of 6

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.”

16. In fact the Supreme Court has also passed directions for expeditious
constitution of the TVC.
17. Under these circumstances this Court is not inclined to entertain the
writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
18. Needless to add, the Petitioners are free to avail of their remedies, if
any, in accordance with law, after the conclusions are concluded.


PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE


VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGE
JULY 29, 2026/ jg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:30.07.2026
18:30:55
W.P.(C) 10535/2026 Page 6 of 6