Two Nehru Place Vendors Can’t Join 90 At Site X; Delhi HC Says 2024 Order Binds, Allows Plea If Named In DDA Affidavit

The Petitioners, who claimed to have vended in Nehru Place since 1989, had pursued several proceedings seeking permission to vend there. In an earlier writ petition, the Court directed them to approach the Town Vending Committee (TVC); subsequent proceedings likewise left consideration of their claims to the TVC.

In W.P.(C) 2453/2023, disposed of on 2 April 2024, the Court permitted them to vend in Kalkaji Ward outside notified non-vending zones and directed that their request for a specific site be considered when TVC-II was constituted.

On 28 September 2026, in separate Nehru Place proceedings, the Court permitted 90 identified vendors to vend temporarily at Site X and allowed certain other vendors recognised in a DDA affidavit to make representations to the MCD. The Petitioners then sought accommodation at Site X, relying on that judgment.

The Court applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including the statutory role of the TVC in determining vending rights and areas, as reflected in the prior orders and the direction that TVC-II decide the vendors’ entitlement to Certificates of Vending.

It also applied the binding effect of the Petitioners’ earlier, case-specific order dated 2 April 2024 and the principle that relief granted in separate proceedings on their particular facts does not, by itself, override an existing order governing the same parties.

Paragraph 48 of the 28 September 2026 judgment provided a route for other vendors recognised in the specified DDA affidavit to make representations to the MCD for consideration in accordance with law.

The Court distinguished the Petitioners from the 90 vendors expressly named for temporary vending at Site X, noting that the 28 September 2026 directions were made on the facts of those proceedings and did not revoke Nehru Place’s status as a no-vending and no-hawking zone.

The Petitioners’ own representation had already been dealt with under the 2 April 2024 order, which permitted vending in Kalkaji Ward subject to the stated exclusions; the later judgment did not review or override that order.

However, paragraph 48 allowed a representation where a vendor’s name was recognised in the specified DDA affidavit, so the Petitioners could seek consideration through that process rather than claim automatic placement at Site X.

They were permitted to make representations under paragraph 48 of the 28 September 2026 judgment; any such representations were to be considered by the MCD Assistant Commissioner within two months, and TVC-II, once constituted, was to review and decide them.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.