Delhi High CourtAdministrative and Public LawConstitutional Law

Delhi HC Bars Vendor From Shopfront Site, Allows Him To Vend From His 2002 Nala Allotment Subject To Certificate Terms

Surender Kumar Arorav.Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

Delhi HC Bars Vendor From Shopfront Site, Allows Him To Vend From His 2002 Nala Allotment Subject To Certificate Terms. Surender Kumar Arora vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. Delhi High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

The Court disposed of the petition.

It also directed

It 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.

TVC-2, upon constitution, was to decide whether to issue a certificate of vending for the second site.

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. 1

The 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. 2

The MCD alleged that he had encroached from the second site into the first site, which was opposite a shop partly owned by him.

p. 2

The petitioner undertook not to vend at the first site and accepted the second site.

p. 4

The Court noted that this was the petitioner’s fourth petition and that the MCD had filed a counter-affidavit.

pp. 1–4

02Issues

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. 2–4

ii.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. 4–6

03Law Applied

The Court considered the petitioner’s application for relief under Article 226 and the terms governing the allotted vending site.

pp. 1, 5–6

It 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, 5–6

The judgment cited no precedents or additional statutory provisions.

pp. 1–6

04Reasoning

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. 2–4

The petitioner’s undertaking not to vend at the first site, and his acceptance of the second site, resolved the dispute on those locations.

p. 4

The 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. 4–6

05Holding

The Court disposed of the petition.

pp. 4–6

It 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. 4–6

TVC-2, upon constitution, was to decide whether to issue a certificate of vending for the second site.

pp. 4–6
Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Surender Kumar AroravsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

Delhi High Court · November 02, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment