01Facts
The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 to vend from Site No. 2 opposite Shop No. 25, Main Market, Malviya Nagar (“first site”).
p. 1The MCD stated that the petitioner had not been allotted that site; he had instead been allotted a site opposite the Main Market on the nala (“second site”) by order dated 14 March 2002.
p. 2The MCD alleged that he had encroached from the second site into the first site, which was opposite a shop partly owned by him.
p. 2The petitioner undertook not to vend at the first site and accepted the second site.
p. 4The Court noted that this was the petitioner’s fourth petition and that the MCD had filed a counter-affidavit.
pp. 1–402Issues
i.Whether the petitioner could claim a right to vend or squat at the first site, which the MCD said had never been allotted to him.
pp. 2–4ii.Whether the petitioner could vend from the second site allotted to him, subject to the applicable vending conditions and the decision on his certificate of vending.
pp. 4–603Law Applied
The Court considered the petitioner’s application for relief under Article 226 and the terms governing the allotted vending site.
pp. 1, 5–6It directed that the petitioner comply with the stated standard conditions and the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019, including requirements concerning the vending zone and period, hygiene, pedestrian and vehicular access, and the prohibition on constructing structures.
pp. 1, 5–6The judgment cited no precedents or additional statutory provisions.
pp. 1–604Reasoning
The MCD’s evidence and position were that the petitioner had been allotted only the second site and had no allotment or entitlement in respect of the first site; it also alleged that he had encroached into the first site from the second.
pp. 2–4The petitioner’s undertaking not to vend at the first site, and his acceptance of the second site, resolved the dispute on those locations.
p. 4The Court therefore confined any permission to vend to the second site, subject to compliance with the stated conditions, and left the decision on issuance of a certificate of vending to TVC-2 upon its constitution.
pp. 4–605Holding
The Court disposed of the petition.
pp. 4–6It held that the petitioner could not vend or squat at, or claim rights over, the first site; he was not to be disturbed if he wished to vend from the second site, subject to the applicable conditions.
pp. 4–6TVC-2, upon constitution, was to decide whether to issue a certificate of vending for the second site.
pp. 4–6Original Court PDF
Surender Kumar AroravsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
