Provisional CoV holder shall not be disturbed pending TVC-II’s decision on correcting the vending location.

The petitioner, engaged in providing Mehendi services outside Hanuman Mandir at BKS Marg, New Delhi, approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

He contended that his Certificate of Vending (“CoV”), bearing Vendor ID V2025200869, incorrectly recorded his vending location and sought correction of the location to Hanuman Mandir Parishar/Compound.

He further sought permission to sell ladies’ wear and cosmetic items in addition to providing Mehendi services.

The New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”) submitted that the petitioner was already providing Mehendi services outside the temple and that any change in his location or vending category could be considered only by Town Vending Committee-II (“TVC-II”).

The Court noted that the CoV mentioned “Mehdi work” and “Janpath” but did not specify the precise vending location.

Whether the petitioner’s Certificate of Vending required correction to accurately record his place of vending outside Hanuman Mandir at BKS Marg, New Delhi.

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to expand or alter his vending activity to include ladies’ wear and cosmetic items in addition to Mehendi services.

Whether the petitioner, as a holder of a provisional Certificate of Vending, could be protected from disturbance pending consideration of his request by the competent Town Vending Committee.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue appropriate directions concerning the petitioner’s Certificate of Vending.

The Court applied the principle that matters concerning alteration of the vending location or category fall within the competence of the Town Vending Committee, specifically TVC-II, rather than being determined directly by the Court or NDMC.

It further recognised that a provisional CoV holder should not be disturbed from the activity for which the provisional CoV had been issued while his request is pending consideration by the competent authority.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court examined the photographs and found that the existing vending site did not have adequate space for expansion of the petitioner’s activities.

Accordingly, it did not grant an immediate direction permitting the sale of ladies’ wear or cosmetic items.

However, since the CoV referred only to “Janpath” and did not specify the petitioner’s actual place of vending, the Court considered it appropriate for the competent TVC-II to examine the request for correction of location.

Recognising that TVC-II had yet to be constituted, the Court directed that it consider the petitioner’s request within three months of its constitution.

In the interim, the petitioner was protected from being disturbed while rendering Mehendi services outside Hanuman Mandir, as he held a provisional CoV.

The Court directed TVC-II, upon its constitution, to consider and decide the petitioner’s request for correction of the place of vending within three months.

The Court did not grant an immediate change in the petitioner’s vending category or permit expansion into ladies’ wear and cosmetic items.

Until the competent authority decides the matter, the petitioner was directed not to be disturbed from providing Mehendi services outside Hanuman Mandir at BKS Marg.

All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.