VISHNU KUMAR v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.
Delhi High Court lets Sarojini Nagar vendor operate as mobile vendor; site allotment left to TVC-II
The court disposed of the petition, permitting the petitioner to vend as a mobile vendor in Sarojini Nagar under his provisional CoV. It held that allotment of a particular site lies with TVC-II, which must decide his representation on a specific site within three months of its constitution.
Why it matters: Specific vending site allotment is for the Town Vending Committee, not the High Court, even where a vendor holds a provisional certificate and challans.
Summary written with AI and checked against the judgment text. It is not part of the judgment; read the full text or PDF.- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Case number
- W.P.(C) - 16736/2026
- Date of judgment
- 6 November 2026
- Petitioner / Appellant
- VISHNU KUMAR
- Respondent
- NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.
- CNR
- DLHC010544432026
- Result
- Disposed
W.P.(C) 16736/2026 Page 1 of 5
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 6TH November, 2026 Uploaded On: 10th November, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010544432026 + W.P.(C) 16736/2026 & CM APPL. 78364/2026 VISHNU KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv with petitioner in person.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara Standing Counsel for NDMC Mr Karthik Dabas ASC Mr Soumit Ganguli Ms Ravicha Sharma Mr Akash Sharma Advocates.
Mr. Anshveer Singh Nalwa, Adv. For
Sarojini Market Shopkeepers
Association.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
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 issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to allot a permanent vending site to the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner has been issued a provisional certificate of vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’) bearing Vendor Id:V2025702663 under the category of
W.P.(C) 16736/2026 Page 2 of 5
‘Others’ in the Sarojini Nagar area.
4. The case of the Petitioner is that he has several challans specifically showing that he is squatting Opposite Shop No.137, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. It is the submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner should be permitted to vend in front of the said shop itself. The photographs placed on record by the Petitioner are as under:-
W.P.(C) 16736/2026 Page 3 of 5
W.P.(C) 16736/2026 Page 4 of 5
5. Ld. Counsel for the Market Association submits that the name of the Petitioner does not appear in the list of surveyed persons though he has a provisional CoV. Further, the number of squatters/vendors in Sarojini Nagar Market has already reached a saturation.
6. On behalf of the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’), Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, ld. Standing Counsel submits that the Petitioner may be permitted to operate as a mobile vendor.
7. The Court has considered the matter and even the images which have been placed by the Petitioner on record. The Sarojini Nagar Market has become extremely crowded and the perusal of the provisional CoV would show that the same is issued for vending in general in the Sarojini Nagar area.
Unfortunately, the Petitioner’s name is not in the list of 628 vendors though
W.P.(C) 16736/2026 Page 5 of 5
he claims to have challans for the last several years.
8. Under these circumstances, the allotment of a particular site would be within the domain of the TVC -II. However, the Petitioner in terms of the provisional CoV and the terms and conditions of the vending shall be permitted to vend as a mobile vendor in the Sarojini Nagar area.
9. TVC-II shall, after constitution, take a decision on the Petitioner’s representation for identifying a specific site within a period of three months.
10. The petition is disposed of with these terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DINESH BHATT
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 6, 2026/MR/ck