Weekly market permitted to continue at its present location subject to strict regulatory conditions and periodic review.

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by residents of Double Storey New Rajinder Nagar seeking removal of unauthorised vendors operating in the weekly market in the locality.

On 24 February 2026, the Court directed the MCD to convene a meeting between representatives of the residents and the weekly-market vendors and attempt to resolve the dispute.

At the meeting held on 26 February 2026, it was agreed that the market would continue at its existing location temporarily, subject to the vendors remaining within their earmarked spaces and maintaining discipline; the MCD also agreed to examine the feasibility of shifting the market to an alternate site, preferably the DDA Market.

Thereafter, the Court directed the MCD to file a feasibility report. The MCD inspected the proposed alternate sites and reported that the DDA Market suffered from waterlogging, while the RWAs of the relevant sites and the Weekly Market Association objected to the proposed relocation.

The MCD accordingly reported that no feasible alternate site had been identified.

Whether the weekly market should be removed from its existing location or shifted to an alternate site on account of the inconvenience allegedly caused to the residents.

Whether, pending identification of a feasible alternate site, appropriate conditions and supervisory directions should be imposed to regulate the functioning of the weekly market and protect residents, pedestrians, traffic flow, and public hygiene.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue appropriate directions for regulating a public-law dispute involving municipal administration, residents, vendors, traffic, access, and hygiene.

The governing principle applied was that, where no immediately feasible alternate site is available, the Court may permit the existing activity to continue subject to reasonable regulatory conditions designed to prevent congestion, obstruction, nuisance, and unhygienic conditions.

The Court also relied on the MCD’s administrative assessment of site feasibility and required continuing municipal and police supervision of the market.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court considered the MCD’s status report, the site inspections, and the objections raised by the concerned RWAs and the Weekly Market Association.

It found that the proposed DDA Market was affected by waterlogging and that the relevant RWAs objected to relocation; therefore, no alternate site could presently be treated as feasible.

Since immediate removal or shifting was impracticable, the Court balanced the vendors’ continued operation against the residents’ concerns by permitting the market to remain temporarily but restricting each vendor to a 6’×4’ space and requiring compliance with conditions concerning traffic, pedestrian movement, ingress and egress, discipline, hygiene, and garbage disposal.

To ensure compliance, the Assistant Commissioner was directed to review the market at least once a month and the concerned SHO was made responsible for maintaining discipline.

The market was permitted to continue at its present location for the time being, subject to the vendors remaining within 6’×4’ spaces, avoiding traffic congestion and obstruction, preserving pedestrian access and residents’ ingress and egress, maintaining hygiene, and not littering.

The MCD was directed to continue examining the feasibility of an alternate site during the non-rainy period and to conduct monthly reviews, while the concerned SHO was directed to ensure discipline and compliance.

The pending applications were also disposed of.