HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16th April v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of in these terms
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE APRIL 16, 2026/Rahul/sm W.P.(C) 5053/2026
Judgment
...Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya, Mr. Anjani Kr. Mishra, Vipin Kr., Mr. Kailash Kr Jha, Ms. Pralika Chakraborty, Mr. Fareeduddin, Ms. Srejal Mishra, Advs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS versus .....Respondents Through: Ms. Puja S Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD. Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil ) GNCTD, Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocates Mr. Akhil Mitta, SPC-UOI with Ms. Riddhi Jain & Ms. Shayna Das Pattanayak, Advs. for R-4 & 5. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Mr. Sheetal Gupta 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 on the footpath/open space, Hansraj Gupta Road alongside DDA Park Wall, Opposite Bharat Petroleum Petrol Pump, Greater Kailash-I, South Zone, Ward-S-86, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the vending site’).
The case of the Petitioner is that he is a street vendor, who has been W.P.(C) 5053/2026 selling paan items and water bottles from the vending site for several years. The Petitioner has been issued a provisional Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’) bearing URI No. 9434943 under the category of ‘Others’ for South Zone, Ward S-86.
The photograph of the vending site of the Petitioner is set out below:
The grievance of the Petitioner is that he is being harassed by the concerned officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) and Delhi Police, who are not allowing him to peacefully vend from the vending site.
One of the conditions in the CoV is that he has to be a mobile vendor. The said condition reads as under: W.P.(C) 5053/2026 “11. Mobile vendors shall not stay or vend more than 30 minutes or time prescribed .by the TVC at place in a vending/squatting zone.”
The Court has considered the matter. After perusing the provision CoV and the nature of the Petitioner’s vend, the Petitioner is permitted to vend from the vending site, subject to the following conditions: (i) The Petitioner shall operate his vend in the manner, as is depicted in the photograph placed before the Court; (ii) The Petitioner shall restrict himself to a particular space, where he is operating from, and shall not extend/encroach to the pedestrian areas or cause obstruction in movement of pedestrians; (iii) The Petitioner shall operate as a mobile vendor only; (iv) The Petitioner shall maintain cleanliness and hygiene around the vend which he is working from and shall ensure the presence of a dustbin near the vend; (v) No permanent or temporary construction shall also be erected by the Petitioner.
Subject to adhering to the above stated conditions, the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from vending in the vending area.
Operative part
Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE APRIL 16, 2026/Rahul/sm W.P.(C) 5053/2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of in these terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 16 Apr 2026. The bench was PRATHIBA M SINGH, MADHU JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.