Delhi HC Lets Sarojini Nagar Vendor Continue Clothes Vending Despite Aadhaar-Challan Name Mismatch, Subject To TVC-2 Decision and Vending Plan

The petitioner, a street vendor at a site opposite Shop No. 136, Sarojini Nagar Market, claimed to be one of 628 vendors whose names had been approved by the Supreme Court in Gainda Ram v. MCD & Ors., with his name appearing at serial No. 537.

After the petitioner was not issued a provisional Certificate of Vending (COV), he sought a decision on his representation dated 13 May 2026. His earlier writ petition was disposed of on the respondents’ undertaking to decide that representation within four weeks, but it remained undecided.

NDMC stated that the representation had not been decided because TVC-2 had yet to be constituted.

The petitioner attributed the non-issuance of a provisional COV to a discrepancy between the name on his Aadhaar card (“Veer Singh Sisodia”) and the name on NDMC challans (“Veer Singh”).

He then filed the present application under Section 151 CPC seeking directions in view of the changed circumstances.

The application was brought under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and arose from proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court referred to Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, under which TVC-2 may formulate a vending plan; the relief granted could not override that plan or create vested rights.

The Court also made the relief subject to the stated COV conditions, including limits on transfer, compliance with the vending period and zone, protection of pedestrian movement, and compliance with applicable laws and the 2019 Scheme.

The judgment identifies no further statutory test or specific precedent as the basis for granting relief.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s vendor status and inclusion in the approved list were undisputed, while the stated reason for withholding a provisional COV was a discrepancy in his name across documents.

Although NDMC had not decided the representation because TVC-2 was not yet constituted, the Court considered the petitioner’s circumstances and similar orders in other writ petitions and granted relief.

It confined that relief to the petitioner’s existing trade in clothes and garments, required compliance with the COV conditions, and preserved TVC-2’s authority to decide the matter and formulate a vending plan.

The directions remain subject to the COV conditions, any decision of TVC-2, and any vending plan made under Section 21 of the 2014 Act; the petitioner may claim no vested right under the order.