Failure to participate in a concluded vendor survey bars reopening, without prejudice to future statutory survey participation.

The Petitioner claimed to be a street vendor selling spectacles, goggles and watches from a table near Shops Nos. 95–96, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi.

He sought permission under Article 226 of the Constitution to participate in a fresh survey being conducted by the New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”) for tehbazari holders, having failed to participate in the survey conducted the previous year.

The Petitioner relied on an NDMC status report dated 25 July 2026, which referred to a survey on humanitarian grounds.

The NDMC contended, inter alia, that the earlier survey had concluded, elections for TVC-II had been conducted, and the vending plan was being finalised.

Whether the Petitioner, having failed to participate in the earlier survey, could be permitted to participate in the fresh survey at this stage.

Whether the NDMC status report dated 25 July 2026 entitled the Petitioner to participate in the survey conducted for specified categories of vendors.

Whether the Petitioner’s rights to participate in any future survey under Section 4(2) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, could be preserved.

The Court applied Section 4(2) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, recognising that a street vendor may participate in any future survey conducted under the statute.

It also applied the principle that a concluded survey cannot ordinarily be reopened after consequential administrative processes, including elections for the Town Vending Committee and finalisation of the vending plan, have progressed.

The Court further distinguished the NDMC’s office order dated 24 July 2026, which concerned a survey limited to old tehbazari holders, Thareja Committee-verified vendors and Kashmiri migrants; persons outside those categories were not covered by that survey.

An unauthorised vendor remains subject to action by the competent authority in accordance with law.

The Court examined the photograph produced by the Petitioner and observed that he appeared to be operating a table in front of other vendors in the Sarojini Nagar area.

Since the Petitioner had not participated in the survey already conducted, and that survey had concluded while TVC-II elections had taken place and the vending plan was under finalisation, the Court held that it could not be reopened for his benefit.

The reliance on the 25 July 2026 status report was misplaced because the relevant office order concerned only specified categories of vendors, none of which included the Petitioner.

Nevertheless, the Court preserved his statutory right to participate in any future survey under Section 4(2), while clarifying that this protection did not prevent the NDMC from proceeding against him as an unauthorised vendor in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that the order would not affect his right to participate in any future survey conducted under Section 4(2) of the 2014 Act.

The NDMC was expressly permitted to take action against him in accordance with law, as he was found to be an unauthorised vendor.

The writ petition and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.