CONT.CAS(C)/1318/2026 of ASHOK KUMAR YADAV Vs INSPECTOR SHAILENDER SINGH JAAKHAR & ORS. on 28 July 2026

O R D E R

% 28.07.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 48091/2026 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

3. The present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 2(B) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in respect of order dated 29th April, 2026 passed in W.P.(C) 425/2025 titled ‘Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.’

4. The present case relates to the Samaypur Badli area, where certain shopkeepers had made unauthorised encroachments and unauthorised street vendors were obstructing the road.

5. Vide order dated 29th April, 2026, in W.P.(C) 425/2025 this Court had directed as under:

“[...]

9. The Court has also seen the photographs which are attached with the status report handed over by the MCD which show that certain demolition and removal of encroachment drives have been conducted by the MCD in the said area.

10. The grievance of the Petitioner is that certain vegetable vendors and other persons, who encroach the road and footpath, continue to come back at their respective sites once the encroachment drives are concluded by the officials of the MCD.

11. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners also emphasizes that the status report filed by the Delhi Police clearly shows that there is a difficulty being faced even by the police officials as the vendors, who are removed by the police officials, come back to vend though the same is a ‘no vending zone’.

12. Heard. Firstly, the process of removal of unauthorised vendors and hawkers is a continuous process and in the opinion of this Court, considering the status report filed by the MCD, it cannot be said that there is contempt of the various orders passed by this Court, as action is being taken by the MCD.

13. Nevertheless, it is emphasized again that there has to be continuous drives undertaken by the authorities for removal of unauthorised encroachments and unauthorised vendors/hawkers in the area. It is made clear that SHO P.S.

Samaypur Badli would be personally responsible to ensure that the vendors who are removed by the MCD do not come back and start vending, that too by creating traffic jams in the area. The photographs which have been placed on record by the Petitioner show that there is blocking of traffic on the road due to such unauthorised vending. Samaypur Badli being a ‘no vending zone’ as per the MCD itself, vending is not permissible in the said area.

14. At this stage, Ms. Soni, ld. Counsel for the MCD has highlighted that shopkeepers have themselves allowed the vendors and hawkers to sit in front of their shops.

15. In order to make removal of the unauthorised vendors effective, it is now directed that if any shopkeeper has given permission to any unauthorised vendor or hawker, the shop of the said shopkeeper will be permitted to be sealed by the MCD. 16 In addition, the SHO P.S. Samaypur Badli shall ensure that the beat constable of the said area undertakes regular supervision in order to remove any unauthorised vendors including vegetable vendors and fruit vendors.

17. With these observations, the contempt petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

6. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the unauthorised street vendors continue to vend on the main road, and the authorities are not taking any action, nor is the S.H.O. taking any action.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has filed certain photographs to show the traffic congestion that has been created in the said area, causing inconvenience to the residents.

8. Further, it is also alleged that certain illegal constructions are being carried out in the said area.

9. The Court has considered the matter. As held in the previous order dated 29th April, 2026, the removal of unauthorised encroachments, unauthorised constructions, unauthorised vendors, etc., is a continuous process. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) had, on the said date, convinced the Court that action is being taken by the MCD.

10. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present contempt petition.

11. However, this contempt petition shall be treated as an application in the W.P.(C)425/2025 and the electronic record of this petition be tagged with the said writ.

12. The S.H.O. – Respondent No. 1 of the concerned area shall file a status report in respect of both the unauthorised vendors as well as the unauthorised constructions in the said area.

13. The MCD and the Public Works Department to also file their respective status reports, by the next date of hearing.

14. The S.H.O. shall remain present either physically or virtually on the next date of hearing in W.P.(C) 425/2025.

15. The petition is accordingly disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. JULY 28, 2026 Rahul/sm