Ranjit Kumar vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Jangpura And Ors

$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of decision: 23 July, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 25 July, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 8840/2026
RANJIT KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya, Adv.
versus
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE JANGPURA
AND ORS ....Respondents
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel
(Civil) GNCTD, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 46313/2026 (for directions) in W.P.(C) 8840/2026
2. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner under Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking directions to the
Respondents to comply with the order dated 7th July, 2026.
3. The brief background of Petitioner’s case is that he is a street vendor
with 40% locomotor disability and was issued the Certificate of Vending
(hereinafter, ‘CoV’) bearing URI No. 1456040 under the category of
‘Others’ . He had been vending at the vending site near old bus adda, Sarai
Kale Khan, Central Zone, Ward S-56, New Delhi.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was evicted from the vending
site by the concerned officials of the Delhi Police, Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and Public Works Department.
W.P.(C) 8840/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:59:36

5. On 7th July, 2026, this Court had considered the various submissions
made by the parties and had also borne in mind the contention raised by the
Delhi government that for the Regional Rapid Transit System (hereinafter,
‘RRTS’) Project, which was being undertaken by the National Capital Region
Transport Corporation (hereinafter, ‘NCRTC’) , all the unauthorised vendors
and tehbazari vendors were to be removed from sites nearby to the station.
6. In the said background, vide order dated 7th July, 2026, this Court had
observed as under:
“8. Heard. In the opinion of the Court insofar as
such infrastructure projects are concerned, it is for the
government agencies to decide as to how to provide for
egress and ingress of passengers availing access to the
railway station and the metro station. The authorities
have to also make adequate space for vehicular traffic
and, accordingly, if action has been taken in an
infrastructure project to remove the vendors and the
tehbazari holders, the same would not be liable to be
interfered with by this Court.
XXX
11. Accordingly, taking a compassionate and
empathetic view, considering the Petitioner is a
disabled person having a certificate of vending, the
Assistant Commissioner, MCD is directed to identify
an alternative space for the Petitioner in the vicinity of
the subject vending site itself so that the Petitioner’s
livelihood is not adversely affected.
12. Let the Petitioner approach the concerned
Assistant Commissioner, MCD within a period of one
week and the identification of the alternative space shall
also be done within that period.
W.P.(C) 8840/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:59:36

13. The Petitioner shall appear before the
th
Assistant Commissioner on 10 July, 2026.
14. It is clarified that this could be without
prejudice to the MCD’s rights as also TVC-II’s powers
to take action after the TVC-II is duly constituted.
15. A perusal of the above photograph of the
subject vend would also show that the manner in which
the Petitioner is carrying out the vending would be
contrary to the conditions of the Certificate of Vending.
The undertaking of the Petitioner is, accordingly,
recorded that upon the alternate space being identified
by the Assistant Commissioner, the Petitioner would
strictly abide by the terms and conditions of the
Certificate of Vending.”
7. In terms of the above order, the Court had clearly held that the ingress
and egress to the various access points to the metro station cannot be
obstructed in any manner. Bearing in mind the said fact as also the fact that
the Petitioner was in the disabled category, the Assistant Commissioner was
directed to identify the alternate space for the Petitioner.
8. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present application is that more
than two weeks have passed, and the Petitioner has not been allotted an
alternate site.
9. Today, the Court has been informed of the order dated 24th June, 2026
passed by the SDM, Jangpura.
th
10. A perusal of the SDM’s order dated 24 June, 2026 would show that
the authorities are presently bearing in mind various factors while deliberating
on the action plan for removal of the unauthorised street vendors. The said
order is set out below:
W.P.(C) 8840/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:59:36

W.P.(C) 8840/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:59:36

11. It is clear from the above that the authorities, including the Special Task
Force, are taking various factors into consideration including, as extracted
above, that the Sarai Kale Khan Namo Bharat Station-cum-Transit hub is fully
functional and it also provides access to the Nizamuddin Railway Station.
Connectivity has been created even to the Delhi Metro Station. The STF notes
that there is rampant encroachment on the Nizamuddin entry road and the
adjoining footpaths.
12. Further, it has been noticed that there are 229 stalls/kiosks which are
operating and commuters are facing difficulty in entering and exiting the Sarai
Kale Khan Namo Bharat station-cum-transit hub.
13. The paucity of adequate walking space has also been taken into
consideration. Recently, the Supreme Court, in its decision dated 19th June,
2026, titled Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors.,
2026 INSC 647 , has recognised the right of pedestrians to safe and
demarcated walking spaces, including footpaths, as a fundamental right.
14. The consideration of the aforesaid factors would show that the rights of
W.P.(C) 8840/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:59:36

passengers accessing these metro stations, including their right to safe and
adequate walking spaces, would have to be balanced with the rights of the
street vendors.
15. The concerned authorities would, therefore, have to identify the space
for vending only for those vendors who have authorised provisional COVs,
and after identifying such space, they shall be subject to strict terms and
conditions governing the manner in which they vend in the area.
16. Considering the order dated 24th June, 2026, passed by the SDM, it is
clear that the authorities are taking all these factors into consideration and, in
such circumstances, there may have been some delay in identifying the space
for vending.
17. Accordingly, a further period of four weeks is granted to the Assistant
Commissioner, MCD, to identify an appropriate alternate space for the
Petitioner to carry on his vending activities, considering that he is a person
with disabilities.
18. It is made clear that the activities being undertaken by the Special Task
Force are not to be impeded by any of the street vendors, in any manner.
19. The present application is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGE
JULY 23, 2026/MR/SM
W.P.(C) 8840/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:59:36