Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Chokhe Lal – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11268/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjay Baniwal, Manisha
For the Respondents: Suhil Kumar Pandey, Aman Kumar Pandey, Pradip Sharma, Kartik Sharma, Srikrishna Kumar Yadav
A concluded street vending survey cannot be reopened for an individual who failed to participate, although the individual may be permitted to participate in future surveys in accordance with the law.
Headnote:(A) Street Vending - Survey Process - Inclusion after conclusion - A survey conducted by the municipal authority, once concluded, cannot be reopened to include a petitioner who failed to participate in the process. (Para 7)
(B) Vending Rights - Future Surveys - Right to participate - A person seeking recognition as a vendor may be permitted to participate in future surveys conducted in accordance with the law. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether a concluded vending survey can be reopened to include a petitioner who failed to participate in the initial survey.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
(Oral)
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 directions to the MCD to conduct the survey of the Petitioner and to not disturb the vending activities of the Petitioner, till the time he is permitted to participate in the survey.
3. The Petitioner claims to be vending from the Main Gate of South Campus, near Police Chowki (South Campus) and further claims that he has been vending from the said site since 2009. In this regard, copies of challans issued in 2009, 2012 have been placed on record.
4. The photograph of the vending cart of the Petitioner has also been placed on record and the same is extracted herein below:-
[[IMG_1]]
5. The case of the Petitioner is that he did not participate in the survey, which was conducted by the MCD. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be permitted to be included in the survey.
6. Ld. Counsel for the MCD submits that the survey is already concluded, and the election for TVC-II has also been concluded. Thus, it is submitted that, at this stage, the Petitioner cannot be included in any survey.
7. The Court has considered the matter and perused the records. Considering that the Petitioner claims to have been vending since 2009 and seeks to participate in the survey conducted, the survey, having already been concluded, cannot be reopened at this stage for the Petitioner.
8. However, it is clarified that, if any future survey is conducted, the Petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the same in accordance with law.
9. The Petitioner’s case may thereafter be considered by the TVC-II at the relevant point in time, if so required.
10. The above is without prejudice to rights and contentions of either of the parties.
11. This Court has not examined the merits and the genuinity of the challans, which have been placed on record.
12. It is made clear that, since the Petitioner does not have a Certificate of Vending to vend in the area, and has also not participated in the survey, the Petitioner’s continued vending shall be subject to the decision of the TVC-II.
13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
