Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/12181/2026 of AVDESH KUMAR Vs NEW-DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL on 20 August 2026
Page 1 of 4 $~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010390762026 + W.P.(C) 12181/2026 AVDESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Advocate. versus NEW-DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Addl Standing Counsel, NDMC with
$~56
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010390762026
+
W.P.(C) 12181/2026
AVDESH KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Advocate.
versus
NEW-DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Addl
Standing Counsel, NDMC with Ms.
Tanishka Grover, Ms. Akriti Aditya
Manubarwala, Ms. Shaila Arora and
Ms. Charvi Virmani, Advocates for
NDMC.
(M) 9650612935
Mr. Subodh Kumar Kaushik, CGSC
with
Mr.
Keshav
Pawar,
Govt.
Pleader, Ms. Akshi Vishnoi, Ms. Riya
Sharma and Mr. Sahil Sindhawani,
Advocates with SHO, PS-Cannaught
Place.
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
% 20.08.2026
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, seeking permission to participate in the survey which is to be conducted by the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’).
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a street vendor, who has been selling Puja Samagri and rendering Astrology services to the general public from his place of squatting within the compound of Hamuman Mandir, under Peepal Tree in front of Sani Mandir, BK Singh Marg, New Delhi.
4. The Petitioner has placed on record the photograph of Petitioner’s vend which is set out below:
5. The caseof the Petitioner is that he did not participate in the survey which was already conducted by the NDMC last year, and the prayer is that he may be permitted to participate in the new survey which is now being conducted for the tehbazari holders.
6. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance upon the status report dated 25th July, 2026 filed by the NDMC in W.P. (C) 8479/2023 titled ‘Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.’, to contend that the NDMC has stated that the survey would be conducted on humanitarian grounds.
7. The Court has heard Mr. N.K. Sahoo, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Aditya Bharat Manubarwal, ld. Counsel for the NDMC.
8. Firstly, a perusal of the photograph on record would show that the Petitioner is claiming to be running a Puja Samagri vend and rendering Astrology services at BK Singh Marg.
9. Secondly, the Petitioner has not participated in the survey which was conducted earlier. The said survey, which already stood concluded, cannot be reopened now as the elections for Town Vending Committee-II (hereinafter, ‘TVC-II’) have been conducted and the vending plan is in the process of finalisation.
10. Further, the reliance on the status report dated 25th July, 2026 is completely misplaced, inasmuch as the office Order dated 24th July, 2026, issued by the NDMC, relates to a survey for Old Tehbazari holders, Thareja Committee-verified vendors and Kashmiri migrants.
11. The Petitioner does not fall in any of the aforesaid categories.
12. Since the Petitioner has not participated in the survey already conducted, no relief can be granted at this stage. However, this would not in any manner affect the rights of the Petitioner to participate, in terms of Section 4(2) of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, in any future survey that takes place.
13. The NDMC is also at liberty to take action in accordance with law, as the Petitioner is clearly an unauthorised vendor.
14. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. AUGUST 20, 2026/jg/Ck