Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17154
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Sukhdev Yadav – Appellant
Versus
New-Delhi Municipal Council – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11971/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.K. Sahoo
For the Respondents: Tushar Sannu, Vaibhav Tripathi, Amit Dogra, Manish Rawat, Anshveer Singh Nalwa
A street vendor who misses a concluded survey cannot demand its reopening once the vending plan is being finalized, although their statutory right to participate in future surveys under the Street Vendors Act, 2014 remains intact.
Headnote:(A) Street Vending - Survey Participation - A concluded survey cannot be reopened for a vendor who failed to participate, particularly when the vending plan is in the process of finalization. (Para 10)
(B) Statutory Rights - Future Surveys - Non-participation in a past survey does not preclude a vendor's right to participate in future surveys as per Section 4(2) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. (Para 13)
(C) Unauthorized Vending - Enforcement - The municipal authority is at liberty to take action in accordance with law against vendors identified as unauthorized. (Para 14)
Issues: Whether a street vendor who failed to participate in a concluded survey can be permitted to participate in a subsequent survey or seek the reopening of the previous 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 oftheConstitutionofIndia, interalia, seekingpermissiontoparticipateinthe survey which is to be conducted by the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’).
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a street vendor, who has been selling spectacles, goggles and watches from his place of squatting near the Shop No. 95, 96 of the Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi.
4. ThePetitionerhasplacedonrecordthephotographofPetitioner’svend which is set out below:
5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he did not participate in the survey which was already conducted by the NDMC last year, and the prayer is that he may be permitted to participate in the new survey which is now being conducted for the tehbazari holders.
6. Further, ld.Counsel forthePetitionerhas alsoplaced reliance uponthe status report dated 25th July, 2026, to contend that the NDMC has stated that the survey would be conducted on humanitarian grounds.
7. TheCourthasheardMr.N.K.Sahoo,ld.CounselforthePetitioner,and Mr. Tushar Sannu, ld. ASC for the NDMC.
8. First, a perusal of the photograph on record would show that the Petitioner is claiming to be running a watch/goggles/spectacles vend in the Sarojini Nagar area.
9. Secondly, the said photograph reveals that the Petitioner has put up a table in front of the other vendors,who may bevending in the Sarojini Nagar area.
10. Thirdly, the Petitioner has not participated in the survey which was conducted earlier.Thesaid survey,whichalreadystoodconcluded, cannotbe reopened now as the elections for TVC-II have been conducted and the vending plan is in the process of finalisation.
11. Further, the reliance on the status report dated 25th July, 2026 is completely misplaced, inasmuch as the office Order dated 24th July, 2026, issued by the NDMC, relates to a survey for Old Tehbazari holders, Thareja Committee-verified vendors and Kashmiri migrants.
12. The Petitioner does not fall in any of the aforesaid categories.
13. Since the Petitioner has not participated in the survey already conducted, no relief can be granted at this stage. However, this would not in anymanneraffecttherightsofthePetitionertoparticipate,intermsofSection 4(2) of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, in any future survey that takes place.
14. The NDMC is also at liberty to take action in accordance with law, as the Petitioner is clearly an unauthorised vendor.
15. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
