Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/9676/2026 of SATYA PRAKASH Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. on 20 July 2026
Page 1 of 4 $~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th July, 2026 Uploaded on: 21st July, 2026 + W.P.(C) 9676/2026 & CM APPL.45006/2026 SATYA PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Swagata Gupta, Mr Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Ms Renu & Ms Shivani, Advs. (M:
$~42
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20th July, 2026
Uploaded on: 21st July, 2026
+
W.P.(C) 9676/2026 & CM APPL.45006/2026
SATYA PRAKASH
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Swagata Gupta, Mr Kamlesh
Kumar
Mishra,
Ms
Renu
&
Ms
Shivani, Advs. (M: 8013313825)
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through:
Ms. Puja S. Kalra, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. for
MCD.
Ms. Snehlata. S. Surana, CGSC with
Mr. Faisal Ishtiaque, Mr. Sarthak Rana
& Mr. Pradyumn Singh, Advs. for R-3
to 5. (M: 7392990109)
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- Mr. Satya Prakash under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to peacefully vend from the vending site at J-9/36, Front of Electricity office, Rajouri garden Delhi, west (Delhi), 110027 (hereinafter, the vending site’).
3. The Petitioner has been issued a Certificate of Vending (hereinafter,
‘CoV’) bearing URI No. 5068994 under the category of ‘Others’ for vending at West Zone, Ward-S-5.
4. The case of the Petitioner is that he has been vending from the vending site on a Tri-cycle, in a mobile condition. However, he is being repeatedly interpreted and obstructed by the concerned officials of the Delhi Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’).
5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Petitioner has a proper CoV, he ought not to be disturbed.
6. Ld. Counsel for the MCD submits that the Petitioner has to be a mobile vendor, and it is possible that the Petitioner is vending in a No- Vending Zone.
7. The Court has perused the photograph of the Petitioner’s vend. The same is extracted below:
8. It is clear from the above photograph itself that the Petitioner is a mobile vendor.
9. If there is any issue that the Petitioner is vending from a No-Vending
Zone, the concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD shall inform the Petitioner as to which is the area, which is not in the No-Vending Zone.
10. In that case, the Petitioner shall not vend in the No- Vending Zone and the Petitioner shall abide by all the remaining terms and conditions of the CoV, subject to which his vend shall not be disturbed in any manner.
11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE JULY 20, 2026/dk/sm