Facts
This judgment concerns two connected petitions regarding squatting at the site in front of Roop Sari Show Room of Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi-110023 ('site near Shop No.25').
Source reference: p.2, para. 2-3Three claimants, Mr. Angad Singh, Mr. Ramdev Yadav, and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, asserted rights to vend at this site.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2-3The chronology of events began with Mr. Angad Singh filing W.P.(C) 4806/2024, in which an order dated April 26, 2024, allowed him to continue vending at the site near Shop No. 25 on a temporary basis.
Source reference: p.2-3, para. 4-5Alleging that Mr. Angad Singh displaced them from the site near Shop No. 25 by misrepresenting his original vending location (which they claimed was near the Delhi Public Library), Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar filed W.P.(C) 16996/2024.
Source reference: p.3-4, para. 7-8This led to a review petition (Rev.Pet. 7/2024) in W.P.(C) 4806/2024, which was disposed of on February 21, 2025, with the court noting that the Delhi Public Library is in the vicinity of Shop No. 25.
Source reference: p.4, para. 9Subsequently, in W.P.(C) 5008/2025, the court directed the Town Vending Committee (TVC) to verify the credentials and fix the vending site for all three parties.
Source reference: p.4-6, para. 11-14After a survey, the TVC found both Mr. Angad Singh and Mr. Ramdev Yadav ineligible, while Mr. Kamlesh Kumar was held to be the eligible vendor for the site near Shop No. 25.
Source reference: p.6, para. 13Mr. Angad Singh refused to vacate the site, leading Mr. Kamlesh Kumar to file W.P.(C) 3141/2026 seeking to be permitted to vend at the site.
Source reference: p.6, para. 14Mr. Angad Singh filed W.P.(C) 13889/2025, alleging harassment by officials and seeking action on his corruption complaint dated August 22, 2024.
Source reference: p.7, para. 15NDMC's status report alleged that Mr. Angad Singh was sub-letting the site, was not present during inspections, and that his son, Mr. Bhupendra Singh, was vending at Mr. Angad Singh's old site near the Delhi Public Library Corner.
Source reference: p.8-11, para. 19-22Mr. Ramdev Yadav's petition, W.P.(C) 18871/2025, was dismissed on December 12, 2025, as he did not possess a Certificate of Vending (COV).
Source reference: p.14, para. 32Issues
Whether Mr. Angad Singh is entitled to continue vending at the site near Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, despite the TVC finding him ineligible and identifying Mr. Kamlesh Kumar as the eligible vendor.
Source reference: p.6, para. 13; p.12, para. 27Whether the court should direct the NDMC to take action on Mr. Angad Singh's complaint dated August 22, 2025, regarding allegations of corruption against officials and harassment.
Source reference: p.7, para. 15; p.8, para. 17Whether Mr. Ramdev Yadav has a valid claim to the site near Shop No. 25, warranting his impleadment or other relief.
Source reference: p.8, para. 18; p.14, para. 32-33Whether the show-cause notice issued to Mr. Angad Singh on December 2, 2025, regarding sub-letting and non-compliance with vending conditions, should be allowed to proceed in accordance with law.
Source reference: p.12-13, para. 28-30Law Applied
The court primarily applied the principle that factual disputes regarding vending eligibility and site location are best resolved by the designated authority, the Town Vending Committee (TVC), as established in W.P.(C) 5008/2025.
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 11-12It recognized the authority of the TVC to verify credentials and determine eligible vendors under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, although the specific section was not cited.
Source reference: no citationThe court also upheld the concept that a petitioner without a Certificate of Vending (COV) has no strong claim to an extraordinary writ jurisdiction, aligning with the statutory framework for street vending.
Source reference: p.14, para. 32Reasoning
The court reasoned that the comprehensive order dated April 22, 2025, in W.P.(C) 5008/2025 had already mandated a fresh survey and verification by the TVC to resolve the competing claims to the site near Shop No. 25.
Source reference: p.12, para. 26The TVC, as the competent authority, conducted this survey and determined Mr. Kamlesh Kumar to be the eligible vendor, while Angad Singh was found ineligible.
Source reference: p.6, para. 13; p.12, para. 27Therefore, Mr. Angad Singh had no legal basis to continue occupying the site.
Source reference: p.12, para. 27The court further noted the NDMC's evidence, including photographs and videos, suggesting Mr. Angad Singh was sub-letting the site and was not personally engaged in vending, which undermined his credibility and adherence to vending regulations.
Source reference: p.8-11, para. 19-22Regarding Mr. Ramdev Yadav, his prior writ petition (W.P.(C) 18871/2025) had already been dismissed due to his lack of a COV, rendering his current claim bereft of merit.
Source reference: p.14, para. 32-33The court allowed the show-cause notice proceedings against Mr. Angad Singh to continue as per law, recognizing the NDMC's authority to investigate potential violations.
Source reference: p.14-15, para. 30, 34Holding
The court concluded that Mr. Angad Singh is not entitled to continue vending at the site near Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, after being found ineligible by the TVC.
Therefore, he was directed to vacate the site within three days (by March 17, 2026), failing which he would be removed on March 18, 2026.
Source reference: p.14, para. 34(i)The site is to be handed over to Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, who was found eligible by the TVC.
Source reference: p.15, para. 34(ii)Mr. Ramdev Yadav's application for impleadment was allowed, but his case was held to lack merit.
Source reference: p.15, para. 34(iii)The show-cause notice issued to Mr. Angad Singh was directed to be proceeded with in accordance with law.
Source reference: p.15, para. 34(iv)NDMC was directed to look into Mr. Angad Singh's complaint dated August 22, 2025, and take appropriate action if officials or third parties are found in violation of law.
Source reference: p.15, para. 34(v)Both petitions were disposed of in these terms, and pending applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: p.16, para. 40The court also cautioned counsel, Mr. N.K. Sahoo, against conflicts of interest.
Source reference: p.15, para. 36-38Original Court PDF
Kamlesh KumarvsNew-Delhi Muncipal Council And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in