Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
VIKAS KUMAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11175/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Petitioner in person
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Goyal, ASC for MCD, Mr. Nitin Kala, Ms. Jyotsna Shandilya, Astha Gupta
The court upheld the validity of vehicle seizure under public space regulations, clarifying definitions and statutory authority for enforcement actions.
Headnote:(A) Guidelines for Handling End of Life Vehicles in Public Places of Delhi, 2024. The petitioner challenged the removal order of his vehicle, asserting it was parked on private property, not public land. The court determined the vehicle was on public streets, warranting lawful impoundment under existing guidelines. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 14)
(B) Statutory Authority - The guidelines affirm enforcement agencies are authorized to tow End of Life Vehicles from public spaces, which includes vehicles improperly parked near residences. The petitioner’s contentions regarding improper seizure were dismissed. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s car was towed while he was out of station, despite being parked within the white parking line at his residence. He contended the removal was illegal without notice.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the respondents' actions as lawful under the new guidelines, clarifying definitions of public places. It accepted the petitioner’s undertaking not to ply the vehicle in NCR.
Issues: Whether the vehicle was parked legally and the appropriate authority of the respondents to remove it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the vehicle was in a public place as defined by the guidelines, validating the respondents' actions to tow it under their established mandate.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges vehicle removal. (Para 1 , 2) |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for directions for quashing the removal order dated 11th July, 2025 and not to destroy the vehicle Chevrolet Aveo Car, bearing registration no. DL3CAE5028, belonging to the petitioner.
2. Petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the petitioner is the owner of the car bearing registration no. DL3CAE5028, Chevrolet Aveo 1.4 LS Petrol BS-IV, White Color, registered with the Registering Authority at Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 1 of 5
3. It is submitted that the subject vehicle was parked within the white parking line area of petitioner‟s residence at E-33 Greater Kailash-III, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, and therefore, was not parked in a public area. It is submitted that the petitioner was not plying the subject vehicle, and was rather out of station, owing to Court vacations.
4. It is submitted that when the petitioner reached his residence on 13th July, 2025, he did not find his car parked at his residence and found the removal order dated 11th July, 2025 affixed there, with the comment that no one was present.
5. Thus, it is submitted that the subject vehicle of the petitioner was illegally towed away on 11th July, 2025, by respondent no. 4, without any information/notice or advertisement.
6. The petitioner, who appears in person, draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 22nd August, 2023 passed by this Court in a batch of petitions, being W.P.(C) 10749/2023, titled as „Ms. Seema Chopra Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.‟, and other connected matters, in order to submit that the respondents had the authority to only issue challan and ought not to have towed away the car of the petitioner.
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsels appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
8. Learned counsels appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3, submit that the action was taken in accordance in law. They submit that since the car was parked outside the residence of the petitioner, the same was a public place.
Therefore, it is submitted that the car was rightly seized.
9. This Court notes the „ Guidelines for Handling End of Life Vehicles in Public Places of Delhi, 2024 ‟, dated 20th February, 2024, issued by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 2 of 5 Transport Department of Government of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”), wherein, public place has been defined in the following manner:
“xxx xxx xxx (ix) Public Place means place which includes but not limited to all the places where anyone can go anytime without any restrictions. It further includes all roads, drainages, and footpaths, Pedestrian space developed by Civic agency or works department. It includes all the land which is owned by Public and accessible to public xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. Thus, it is clear that car of the petitioner that was parked outside the residence of the petitioner was parked in a public place, as the same was parked on the street outside the residence of the petitioner.
11. As per the definition of Public Place in the aforesaid Guidelines, Public Place includes all the places, where anyone can go any time without any restriction, which includes all roads, footpaths and all the land which is owned by public and is accessible to public. Therefore, this Court rejects the contention of the petitioner that the car of the petitioner was not parked on public land.
12. This Court further takes note that as per the aforesaid Guidelines, it is categorically stipulated that End of Life Vehicles (“ELV”) found plying or parked in public place will be impounded or seized by the Enforcement Agency. The relevant Clause of the aforesaid Guidelines, is reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
3. ENFORCEMENT DRIVE (i) The enforcement agency should conduct continuous enforcement drives for phasing out End of Life Vehicles from public places of Delh
