TVC must expeditiously determine eligibility for Certificate of Vending and communicate decisions to applicants within stipulated timelines.

The Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a High Court order dated 05.12.2025 (passed in W.P.(C) 18513/2025), which directed the Respondents to communicate whether the Petitioner was entitled to a Certificate of Vending (COV) within four weeks.

The Petitioner had previously undergone a survey under the Street Vendors Act.

In response to the 2025 order, the NDMC Enforcement Department issued a communication dated 23.12.2025, stating that the Petitioner’s initial "Not Eligible" status (due to insufficient documents) was being reconsidered after he uploaded revised documents during a special window provided by the Town Vending Committee (TVC).

1. Whether the Respondents committed willful disobedience of the directions issued in the judgment dated 05.12.2025 regarding the communication of the Petitioner's eligibility for a COV.

2. Whether the ongoing administrative process for document verification by the Town Vending Committee (TVC) constitutes sufficient compliance with the court's prior directions.

The court applied the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, particularly regarding the mandate of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) to consider and approve certificates based on notified schemes and rules.

It further operated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, assessing whether the delay or the nature of the Respondents' communication amounted to "wilful disobedience" of a court undertaking.

The Court observed that the Respondents had partially complied with the timeline by issuing a communication on 23.12.2025, within the four-week window stipulated in the original order.

However, this communication was interim, stating that the final decision awaited a meeting of the TVC.

The Court analyzed the Respondent's submission that the TVC meets regularly and that the Petitioner’s revised documents are currently under scrutiny following a general rectification period offered to all "not eligible" vendors.

The Court reasoned that since a statutory process was underway and the Respondents provided an undertaking to expedite the final decision, the rigors of contempt were not presently attracted, provided a definitive timeline for finality was established.

The Respondents were directed to consider the Petitioner’s request for a provisional COV expeditiously and pass a final decision within four weeks from the date of the order (20.04.2026), to be communicated to the Petitioner immediately thereafter; the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the Petitioner to seek legal remedies if aggrieved by the final outcome.