Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/16736/2026 of VISHNU KUMAR Vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. on 6 November 2026
$~22
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 6TH November, 2026
Uploaded On: 10th November, 2026
CNR No. DLHC010544432026
+
W.P.(C) 16736/2026 & CM APPL. 78364/2026
VISHNU KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv with
petitioner in person.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Sriharsha Peechara Standing
Counsel for NDMC Mr Karthik Dabas
ASC Mr Soumit Ganguli Ms Ravicha
Sharma Mr Akash Sharma Advocates.
Mr. Anshveer Singh Nalwa, Adv. For
Sarojini
Market
Shopkeepers
Association.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
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 issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to allot a permanent vending site to the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner has been issued a provisional certificate of vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’) bearing Vendor Id:V2025702663 under the category of
‘Others’ in the Sarojini Nagar area.
4. The case of the Petitioner is that he has several challans specifically showing that he is squatting Opposite Shop No.137, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. It is the submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner should be permitted to vend in front of the said shop itself. The photographs placed on record by the Petitioner are as under:-
5. Ld. Counsel for the Market Association submits that the name of the Petitioner does not appear in the list of surveyed persons though he has a provisional CoV. Further, the number of squatters/vendors in Sarojini Nagar Market has already reached a saturation.
6. On behalf of the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’), Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, ld. Standing Counsel submits that the Petitioner may be permitted to operate as a mobile vendor.
7. The Court has considered the matter and even the images which have been placed by the Petitioner on record. The Sarojini Nagar Market has become extremely crowded and the perusal of the provisional CoV would show that the same is issued for vending in general in the Sarojini Nagar area. Unfortunately, the Petitioner’s name is not in the list of 628 vendors though he claims to have challans for the last several years.
8. Under these circumstances, the allotment of a particular site would be within the domain of the TVC-II. However, the Petitioner in terms of the provisional CoV and the terms and conditions of the vending shall be permitted to vend as a mobile vendor in the Sarojini Nagar area.
9. TVC-II shall, after constitution, take a decision on the Petitioner’s representation for identifying a specific site within a period of three months.
10. The petition is disposed of with these terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE
DINESH BHATT JUDGE
NOVEMBER 6, 2026/MR/ck