Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/12215/2026 of RINKI Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI on 21 August 2026
Page 1 of 3 $~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010392572026 + W.P.(C) 12215/2026 RINKI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Baniwal and Ms. Manisha, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meherunnisa A . Jaitley, Mr. Aryan Tyagi
$~26
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010392572026
+
W.P.(C) 12215/2026
RINKI
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Baniwal and Ms.
Manisha, Advocates.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Ms.
Meherunnisa
A.
Jaitley,
Mr.
Aryan Tyagi and Mr. Jaskeerat Singh
Advs. for MCD
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 21.08.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the election of the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter, ‘TVC’) constituted under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that she had contested the elections for the TVC from the women general category seat, from Karol Bagh Zone.
4. The Petitioner is seeking a probe and also seeks quashing of the elections recently held. Various grounds have been raised by the Petitioner, including allegations of illegality in the election process and participation of ineligible candidates.
5. The further case of the Petitioner is that she has made representation dated 7th August, 2026 to the MCD alleging fraud in the elections. However, the same has not been decided.
6. Ms. Meherunnisa A. Jaitley, ld. Counsel for the MCD submits that at the time of nomination of candidates being scrutinised, no objections were received by the Petitioner in respect of the ineligibility of any of the candidates.
7. The Court has considered the matter. The challenge to the elections of the TVC cannot, obviously, be adjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same has been reiterated by this Court in similar matters where challenge to the TVC elections was raised, being W.P.(C) 11476/2026 titled ‘Abu Khalid and Ors. v. MCD and Ors.’ vide order dated 11th August, 2026.
8. The grounds raised by the Petitioner have to be considered in an election petition. The Petitioner would have to avail of their remedies by filing an election petition before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
9. Needless to add, the records of the election papers shall be preserved in terms of paragraph 59 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Election of the members of Town Vending Committee from amongst the street vendors) Guidelines, 2026.
10. Insofar as the representation dated 7th August, 2026 is concerned, the MCD may consider the same in accordance with law.
11. The present petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail of her remedies in accordance with law. All pending applications are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. AUGUST 21, 2026/MR/SM