1. Petition seeking issuance of a Certificate of Vending under the Urban Street Vendors Scheme. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 21988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Nanni Bai Ahirwar – Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14643/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aastha Dhawan, Vanshika Goswami
For the Respondents: Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Mananjay Kumar Mishra, Tanishka Grover, Charvi Virmani, Shaila Arora
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aastha Dhawan, Vanshika Goswami
For the Respondents: Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Mananjay Kumar Mishra, Tanishka Grover, Charvi Virmani, Shaila Arora
An illiterate person should not be denied administrative benefits or eligibility due to technical errors in the application process, such as the creation of multiple IDs, and the authority must ensure a fair verification of all submitted documents.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Issuance of Certificate of Vending - Technical errors in application process - An uneducated applicant cannot be penalized for submitting documents under multiple vending IDs; the authority is directed to verify documents across all IDs to ensure the applicant is not deprived of eligibility due to technical confusion. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a Certificate of Vending despite the technical complication of having two separate vending IDs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner uploaded documents under two vending IDs; NDMC did not consider both sets. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Petitioner cannot suffer due to two vending IDs; documents under both IDs must be verified. (Para 9 )
4. An uneducated person cannot be made to suffer for administrative error of issuing duplicate IDs. (Para 9 )
5. Petitioner to submit documents; NDMC to include name in eligible list and issue provisional CoV. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. Can an uneducated vendor be made to suffer due to issuance of duplicate vending IDs by the authority?
No, the court held the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the administrative error of issuing two vending IDs. (Para 9 )
7. What is the duty of the municipal authority when duplicate vending IDs are issued for the same vendor?
The authority must verify documents under both IDs, include the vendor in the eligible list, and cancel the duplicate ID. (Para 9 )
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 68513/2026 (exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14643/2026 & CM APPL. 68512/2026 (for interim protection)
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to issue a Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’) to the Petitioner.
4. The Petitioner is stated to be a vendor at Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi and is selling footwear. According to the Petitioner, she has been vending at the said site since 1988. Initially, a hawking license for sale of uncut fruits was granted to the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner had then applied under the Urban Street Vendors Scheme of the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’) in 2007. The Petitioner, thereafter, started selling footwear.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that two surveys were conducted of the Petitioner i.e., on 2nd January, 2025 and 3rd January, 2025 respectively, and two vending IDs were generated bearing nos. V2025100007 and V2025100042. After the said surveys were completed, a list of persons found eligible was published by the NDMC, however, the name of the Petitioner was not included in the same.
6. The Petitioner, thereafter, uploaded the required affidavit, identity records, slips, challans and supporting documents in one of the vending IDs issued to the Petitioner. However, her name was still excluded in the eligibility list which was published in May 2026. The Petitioner has made repeated representations to the NDMC, however, no CoV has been issued to the Petitioner.
7. The submission of Ms. Dhawan, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that due to the two vending IDs, though, the Petitioner has uploaded all the documents, the same are not duly considered by the NDMC.
8. Mr. Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, ld. Counsel for the NDMC has entered appearance and submits that the documents uploaded qua one vending ID have been considered and the documents in respect of the second ID have not been considered.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to issuance of two Vending IDs. The Petitioner who is an uneducated person cannot be expected to appreciate that there are two Vending IDs and hence documents have to be submitted under both IDs. Being an illiterate person, she may have uploaded some documents in one ID and some under another ID. Under these circumstances, since the Petitioner’s documents would have to be verified before issuing either the provisional CoV or the final CoV, the following directions are issued:
i. The Petitioner shall collect all the documents submitted under both the vending IDs and appear before the Joint Director, NDMC on 15th October, 2026 at 2:30 p.m.
ii. After verifying all the documents of the Petitioner, the Joint Director, NDMC shall include the Petitioner’s name in the eligible list of vendors and shall also take steps towards issuance of provisional CoV with one Vending ID. The other ID shall be cancelled so that such confusion does not arise in future.
10. After the Town Vending Committee-II is constituted, the Petitioner’s case shall be considered for issuance of the final COV, within three months after constitution.
11. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
