Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/10007/2026 of OM PRAKASH Vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. on 23 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10007/2026 OM PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Aggarwal, Advocate. versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara Standing Counsel for NDMC with Mr. Sukrit Seth ASC, Mr. Soumit Ganguli, Ms.
$~53
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) 10007/2026
OM PRAKASH
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Bharat Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
& ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sriharsha
Peechara
Standing
Counsel for NDMC with Mr. Sukrit
Seth ASC, Mr. Soumit Ganguli, Ms.
Ravicha
Sharma
and
Mr.
Akash
Sharma Advocates.
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
% 23.07.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 46561/2026 and CM APPL. 46562/2026 (for exemptions)
2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 10007/2026
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to survey the Petitioner and issue a Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘the CoV’).
4. The case of the Petitioner is that he is working as a barber near the Shivaji Bridge Campa Cola Factory, backside Super Bazar, New Delhi
(hereinafter, ‘the vending site’).
5. According to the Petitioner, he was physically surveyed and verified by the Town Vending Committee on 29th January, 2025, at his vending site.
6. However, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the digital survey in respect of the Petitioner was not completed and no acknowledgement receipt was issued.
7. The Petitioner has placed on record only certain challans dating back to 2015 and some old challans pertaining to the 1990s.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no acknowledgement receipt has been issued in his favour, as the digital survey in respect of the Petitioner was not completed.
9. Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, ld. Standing Counsel for the NDMC objects to the aforesaid position and submits that whichever vendors were found eligible, their names have already been included in the eligible vendors list and the survey has itself been completed.
10. Further, ld. Counsel for the NDMC also submits that the Petitioner has never participated in the survey.
11. The Court has heard the matter. Since the Petitioner has not been included in the list of eligible vendors, the survey cannot, at this stage, be reopened, as the same has already concluded.
12. In future, if there is any survey conducted, in terms of Section 4 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the Petitioner is free to participate in the same.
13. The present petition is disposed of in these terms with all pending applications, if any. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. JULY 23, 2026/MR/SM