01Facts
The Petitioner, a 100% visually impaired person, operates a fruit-selling khokha and was dispossessed in 2017 by a private individual engaged in illegal vending activities.
p. 1, 2Despite multiple court orders in W.P.(C) 1333/2018 and CONT.CAS(C) 984/2019 directing the Town Vending Committee (TVC) to survey and consider the Petitioner’s case, no Certificate of Vending (CoV) was issued.
p. 2Although the Petitioner participated in a survey in August 2025, the MCD failed to communicate any results.
p. 3The Petitioner alleged constant harassment by police and MCD officials, as well as the denial of an electricity connection due to the lack of a CoV.
p. 2On February 17, 2026, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to appear and explain the non-issuance of the CoV and the "reasonable accommodation" provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
p. 4In response, the MCD filed a status report indicating that the survey in the Rohini Zone remained incomplete because TVC members refused to participate due to non-payment of their allowances.
p. 502Issues
i.1. Whether the MCD's failure to complete the statutory survey and issue a Certificate of Vending (CoV) to a disabled petitioner constitutes a violation of previous judicial directions and administrative duty.
p. 3, 5ii.2. Whether the non-payment of allowances to TVC members justifies the indefinite delay in finalizing street vending rights and the resultant harassment of vendors.
p. 5iii.3. Whether the conduct of the MCD officials in failing to appear and failing to pay court-ordered costs warrants stricter judicial measures.
p. 603Law Applied
The Court's reasoning is anchored in the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which mandates the constitution of TVCs and the issuance of CoVs based on surveys.
pp. 2-3The Court further emphasized the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically the principle of "reasonable accommodation" required for a 100% visually disabled person.
p. 4The Court exercised its power to impose costs and compel the personal appearance of high-ranking officials to ensure compliance with its mandates and to address administrative "callousness".
p. 604Reasoning
The Court expressed profound dissatisfaction with the MCD’s "callous" and "dysfunctional" approach.
p. 6It observed that the Petitioner has been forced into prolonged litigation since 2018 despite clear judicial orders.
p. 3The Court found it "shocking" that the MCD failed to ensure the participation of elected TVC members by withholding their allowances, effectively stalling the entire survey process and preventing the issuance of CoVs.
p. 5The Court criticized the MCD for deputing a junior official (Assistant Section Officer) when the Assistant Commissioner was specifically ordered to appear, and for filing a status report that lacked clear timelines or reasons for the TVC's non-participation.
p. 6The Court rejected the MCD's attempt to seek liberty from paying previously imposed costs, characterizing their defense as an attempt to mislead the Court.
p. 605Holding
The Court held that the Petitioner’s vending activities must not be hampered or obstructed by the MCD or Delhi Police pending the finalization of the survey.
p. 6Due to the continued non-compliance and the MCD's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation, the Court directed the Commissioner, MCD, to be physically present on the next date of hearing.
p. 6The Court increased the previously imposed costs from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000, payable to the Petitioner within one week.
p. 6The matter was listed for further hearing on April 9, 2026.
p. 7Original Court PDF
Bharat BhushanvsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
