$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24^th March, 2026 Uploaded on: 30^th March, 2026 + W.P.(C) 3758/2026 BACHCHU SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mohd. Faisal, Advocate.

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Meherunnisa Anand and Mr.

Sirish Gupta Advs. for R-1 and 2 (M:

).

Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Sr. Panel Counsel Along with Ms. Soumya Saxena, Ms. Nazma Akhtar, Mr. Waseem and Ms. Madiha, Advocates for Delhi Police (M: .

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners-Mr. Bachchu Singh and Mr. Rama Kant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents and restraining them from evicting the Petitioners from the vending sites opposite Mansarovar Building, Nehru Place Commercial Complex, New Delhi.

3. The present petition is the third writ petition filed by the Petitioners. Since there is a history to this litigation, the same is being captured hereinafter.

4. Initially, the Petitioners were removed from the vending sites in May, 2016, which led to filing of Writ Petition (Civil) 2566/2017 titled ‘Bachchu Singh and Anr. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.’. The grievance of the Petitioners in the said petition was that they were being constantly harassed and victimised by the concerned officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and police, who were not allowing the Petitioners to vend from the vending site in Nehru place area. The Petitioners in the said petition stated that they have been vending at the vending sites in the Nehru Place area, since 2004.

5. In Writ Petition (Civil) 2566/2017, reliance was also placed upon the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 766/2008 titled ‘Manushi Sangathan, Delhi v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.’ dated 17th April, 2009. It was stated that Nehru Place is a No-vending Zone, however, only 67 vendors were allowed to hawk in the area, who were under the umbrella of Manushi Sangathan. Further, 85 other vendors were granted protection by various orders of this Court.

6. Pertinently, the order dated 17th April, 2009 was challenged before the Supreme Court in a batch of petitions and the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) 29277/2009 vide order dated 25th April, 2011 affirmed the aforesaid position and disposed of the SLP in the following terms:

“This petition is directed against order dated 17.04.2009 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the operative portion of which reads thus:

"In view of the above findings, we dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal by directing DDA to continue with the pilot project. Accordingly, 67 vendors (reduced to 67 from 68 as per the statement made by the appellant-NGO) will be permitted to hawk in the area which was demarcated by DDA prior to their removal on 19th April, 2008. However, it will be open to DDA to examine whether Nehru Place or the said area should be declared a non-hawking area and if required, demarcate vending/non-vending areas in Nehru Place. Removal/shifting of the hawkers under the pilot project, if required, will directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Madan (supra). The question whether Nehru Place should be declared as no hawking zone and the question of demarcating non-vending areas will be decided by the DDA after making reference to the Ward Vending Committee and on the basis of the directions issued by the Supreme Court and in terms of the Scheme of the MCD. We may note that MCD has stated that they had already allotted alternative site to some hawkers out of the list of 67 street vendors. If any of said hawkers have already opted for the new site, they will not be entitled to the benefit of this Order. The Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.”

Arguments in the case were heard on different dates and the judgment was