Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/11268/2026 of CHOKHE LAL Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. on 12 August 2026
11268/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th August, 2026 Uploaded on: 13th August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010362352026 + W.P.(C) 11268/2026 CHOKHE LAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Baniwal and Ms. Manisha, Advs. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
$~52
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th August, 2026
Uploaded on: 13th August, 2026
CNR No. DLHC010362352026
+
W.P.(C) 11268/2026
CHOKHE LAL
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Baniwal and Ms. Manisha,
Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Suhil Kumar Pandey, SPC with
Mr. Aman Kumar Pandey, Mr. Pradip
Sharma, Mr. Kartik Sharma, GP, Mr.
Srikrishna Kumar Yadav, Adv. for
UNION OF INDIA/R-2 & 3. (M:
9873588234)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
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.
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 directions to the MCD to conduct the survey of the Petitioner and to not disturb the vending activities of the Petitioner, till the time he is permitted to participate in the survey.
3. The Petitioner claims to be vending from the Main Gate of South Campus, near Police Chowki (South Campus) and further claims that he has been vending from the said site since 2009. In this regard, copies of challans
By:RAHUL
issued in 2009, 2012 have been placed on record.
4. The photograph of the vending cart of the Petitioner has also been placed on record and the same is extracted herein below:-
5. The case of the Petitioner is that he did not participate in the survey, which was conducted by the MCD. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be permitted to be included in the survey.
6. Ld. Counsel for the MCD submits that the survey is already concluded, and the election for TVC-II has also been concluded. Thus, it is submitted that, at this stage, the Petitioner cannot be included in any survey.
7. The Court has considered the matter and perused the records. Considering that the Petitioner claims to have been vending since 2009 and seeks to participate in the survey conducted, the survey, having already been concluded, cannot be reopened at this stage for the Petitioner.
8. However, it is clarified that, if any future survey is conducted, the
By:RAHUL
Petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the same in accordance with law.
9. The Petitioner’s case may thereafter be considered by the TVC-II at the relevant point in time, if so required.
10. The above is without prejudice to rights and contentions of either of the parties.
11. This Court has not examined the merits and the genuinity of the challans, which have been placed on record.
12. It is made clear that, since the Petitioner does not have a Certificate of Vending to vend in the area, and has also not participated in the survey, the Petitioner’s continued vending shall be subject to the decision of the TVC-II.
13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE
VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2026/dk/sm
By:RAHUL