W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 1 of 15

$~56

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 16

th

April, 2026

Uploaded on:20

th

April, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 11872/2025 & CM APPL. 24494/2026, CM APPL.

24593/2026

YASHODA DEVI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. K.C. Aggarwal, Adv.

versus

MCD THROUGH COMMISSIONER & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Harshit Chopra Standing Counsel

MCD along with Swati Tiwari Adv

and Khushal Chand Agarwal Adv, for

R1 MCD

Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur (standing council

DDA), Mr. Aditya Verma, Advs.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by Mrs. Yashoda Devi, who claims

to be a vendor in the C-Block, East of Kailash Market, New Delhi, selling

fruits and vegetables. The Certificate of Vending bearing no.URI:2241122

has been issued to the Petitioner under the category of“fresh fruits/

vegetables/perishables”and the permissible vending zone is specified as

Central Zone, Ward S-89. One of the conditions of vending mentioned with

the Certificate of Vending is condition no. 11 which is as under:

“11. Mobile vendors shall not stay and shall not

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 2 of 15

do selling activities more than 30 minutes or time

prescribed by TVC at any hawking/vending zone.

The vendor shall not stay or do any selling at any

non-vending zone.”

3. This is the second writ petition filed by the Petitioner,inter alia,

seeking a declaration that she is a stationary vendor and not a mobile vendor

as specified in her Certificate of Vending. In the earlier round, the Petitioner

had filedW.P.(C) 1596/2023,titledMrs. Yashoda Devi v. Municipal Corp of

Delhi through Commissioner & Othersin whichvideorder dated 8

th

February 2023 which was directed as under:

“However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner limits the relief to a direction to the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi to permit her to continue to vend

without impediment or hindrance in accordance with

the terms and conditions of the vending certificate dated

06.11.2021, issued to her, which is annexed as Annexure

P-1.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi, on advance notice states that they

will permit Mrs. Yashoda Devi to vend at Central Zone,

Ward S-89, in terms of the said certificate, however,

strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions

stipulated therein.

Directed accordingly.

The petitioner prays for and is granted leave to

approach the appropriate authorities in accordance

with law in relation to prayer Clause II and IV.

Leave and liberty granted.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.”

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 3 of 15

As per the above order, the Petitioner’s stand was recorded that she would

vend strictly as per the terms and conditions in the provisional CoV and

subject to the same, she would not be disturbed.

4. Thereafter, the Petitioner had filed a Contempt Petition being

CONT.CAS(C) 518/2023,titledMrs. Yashoda Devi v. Mr. Rajpal Singh &

Ors.,in respect of the above order. In the said Contempt Petition, after

hearing the parties, the ld. Single judge had disposed of the samevideorder

dated 18

th

March, 2025 in the following terms:

“10.In the opinion of this Court, Order dated 8th

February 2023 merely states that petitioner will be

permitted to continue to vend without any hindrance,

in accordance with terms and conditions of CoV dated

6th November 2021.

11. Considering the conditions as contained in CoV,

petitioner is at liberty to approach the Roster Bench and

seek clarification in W.P. (C) 1596/2023, for his

purpose.

12.In the meantime, petitioner shall continue to

comply with terms and conditions of CoV.

13. It is however directed that considering the advanced

age of petitioner, there will be no unnecessary

harassment meted out to her either by MCD officials or

by respondent no.7, in any manner whatsoever.”

5. Pursuant to the said order passed in the contempt, the Petitioner filed

an application inW.P.(C) 1596/2023,bearing no.CM APPL. 27819/2025.

Videorder dated 23rd May, 2025 after considering the order dated 8

th

February 2023, the Court had directed as under:

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 4 of 15

“5. It is the case of the Petitioner that presently, the

Petitioner is being repeatedly disturbed from vending at

the vending area, as the shopkeeper of the shop in front

of the place where she is vending is an influential person

and hence, it is prayed that the clarification with respect

to the order dated 8

th

February, 2023, should be given

to the effect that the Petitioner is a stationary vendor

and cannot be removed from her vending area.

6. According to Mr. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for the

Petitioner, the opening of the alleged shopkeeper’s shop

is also contrary to the by-laws. It is due to the

harassment by the said shopkeeper that the Petitioner is

forced to file this application.

7. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1– Municipal

Corporation of Delhi has placed before this Court the

photographs of the Petitioner’s vending spot. A perusal

of the same would show that the Petitioner has a small

wooden table on which she is vending her fresh fruits,

vegetables and perishables goods. The certificate of

vending has the following conditions attached to it:

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 5 of 15

8. In terms of the above stated conditions, the Petitioner

is not permitted to claim that she is a stationary vendor.

In fact, it is the position of Respondent No. 1– Municipal

Corporation of Delhi that permanent certificates of

vending are yet to be issued to vendors as the survey of

the Town Vending Committee is still ongoing and no

such certificates are issued to any vendors.

9.One of the conditions in the vending certificate is

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 6 of 15

that she would be a mobile vendor and she cannot put

up any permanent structure. Under such

circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the only

relief that the Petitioner would be entitled to is that so

long as she adheres to the terms and conditions in the

certificate of vending, she would not be disturbed. This

relief is also the exact relief which has already been

granted in her favour vide order dated 8

th

February,

2023.

10.The Petitioner would have to ensure that she does

not hamper the pedestrian movement at the vending

area.

11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of in terms

of the order dated 8th February, 2023 and no further

relief is liable to be granted.”

6. As can be seen from the above, in all the three orders the Court has

repeatedly recognised the fact that the Petitioner is a mobile vendor and that

she is not a stationary vendor. Accordingly, subject to her complying with the

conditions of the provisional Certificate of Vending, the Petitioner was free

to continue the vending activities and would not be disturbed.

7. Despite the above orders, the present Writ Petition has now been filed

seeking almost exactly the same reliefi.e.,declaration that the Petitioner is a

stationary vendor. However, the order dated 23rd May, 2025 passed inCM

APPL. 27819/2025inW.P.(C) 1596/2023,has been cleverly concealed by the

Petitioner.

8. For the sake of completeness, the prayer sought in this Writ Petition is

as under:-

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 7 of 15

“I. Directing the Commissioner of Police and

Commissioner of MCD to remove the barricades with

immediate effect and free the petitioner, her family

members and her vending goods from confinement at the

vending site.

II. Permitting the petitioner to remove the said

barricades if there is delay by MCD/ Police and to

remove the same if barricades are put again.

III. Directing the Commissioner of MCD with

Commissioner of Police to take immediate action to

close the back side illegal opening of Shop no. 1,2 and

3 at East of Kailash Market to remove the cause of

dispute and put to quietus the reason or the illegal

motive for causing continuous and day to day

harassment to the petitioner.

IV.Declare that the petitioner is a stationary vendor

unless otherwise held by any court.

V. Directing the Commissioner MCD and

Commissioner Police to issue and enforce appropriate

directions to the officials not to put any hurdles or take

away any articles of the petitioner unless there are

written orders of any court or Competent Authority

under the law and further directing to return the

illegally seized items or pay back their value and fix

responsibility for the violation of law already committed

and harassments already caused.

VI. Directing the MCD to write appropriate letter to

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. with Copy of the petitioner

for withdrawing their earlier letter for removal of and

immediate release of electric Connection vide K No.

350804775.”

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 8 of 15

9. It is the case of the Petitioner that she is a stationary vendor and that the

MCD and police officials had illegally confined the Petitioner by placing

barricades around her vend. The Petitioner has been heard and the petition has

been considered on several dates. In the first order passed on 7

th

August, 2025,

the barricades placed around the Petitioner’s vend were directed to be

removed on the strength of the order dated 8

th

February, 2023 passed in the

first round of litigation. However, it is observed that, at that stage, the

predecessor Bench of this Court did not have the benefit of the order dated

23

rd

May, 2025 passed in theCM APPL. 27819/2025inW.P.(C) 1596/2023

as the same had not been placed on record. It was on the basis of the earlier

order, dated 8

th

February 2023 that the barricades were directed to be

removed. Thereafter, the matter has been heard from time to time.

10. The Court has heard Mr. K.C. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner

in detail. The basic contention of Mr. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel is that the

Petitioner is not a mobile vendor, as specified in her Certificate of Vending,

and that she is a stationary vendor. It is argued that the Petitioner has been

working in the East of Kailash ‘C” block market for the last 40 years.

11. The Court has also heard the ld. Counsel for the MCD and ld. Counsel

for the private Respondents who are the shopkeepers in the subject market.

12. A perusal of the photographs placed on record, would show that the

Petitioner has created a stationary vend which occupies a substantial space of

the pavement in the subject market. The relevant photographs filed in the

Petition are set out below:

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 9 of 15

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 10 of 15

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 11 of 15

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 12 of 15

13. The Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 have also handed over

certain photographs to show that during the day there are few trays which are

kept by the Petitioner but at night a larger portion of the pavement is occupied

by the Petitioner.

14. Be that as it may a perusal of the photographs filed by the Petitioner

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 13 of 15

and by the Respondent/shopkeepers shows one thingi.e.,that the subject vend

of the Petitioner is not a mobile vend, and in fact it is a stationary vend where

the petitioner and her son are sitting in one place and vending fresh fruits and

vegetables. However, in terms of the provisional Certificate of Vending

issued to the Petitioner this would not be permissible. In fact, the Petitioner

ought to have fairly disclosed all the orders which were passed by this Court

in the earlier Writ Petitions which the Petitioner failed to do.

15. At this stage, Mr. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that

due process ought to be followed and the Petitioner ought not to be disturbed

as the Sriniwaspuri, Ward is a huge ward covering East of Kailash, B-Block,

C-Block, Friends Colony, Okhla etc., and therefore, the Petitioner is permitted

to vend in East of Kailash C-Block Market.

16. In the opinion of this Court, this submission is completely bereft of any

merit. A perusal of the list of vendors which has been attached in the reply of

the Respondents No. 3 to 5, would also show that specifically the Petitioner

is recognised as a vendor in Sriniwaspuri Ward No. 68, Delhi. The said

document is stated to have been accessed from the website of MCD. The entry

in respect of the Petitioner reads:

It is clear from the same that the Petitioner is not recognised as a vendor in

any particular market or on any particular street or with respect to any specific

landmark for example there are other vendors who have vending sites which

are specifically mentioned as - Near Iskcon Temple; Garhi Main Market;

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 14 of 15

Amritpuri near Iskcon Temple; East of Kailash C-Block Market etc.

17. The Petitioner having been recognised only as a mobile vendor in the

whole ward of Sriniwaspuri and the same having been also specified in her

provisional certificate of vending, as also the fact that three different orders

have been passed reiterating this position, at this stage the Petitioner cannot

be recognised as a stationary vendor. The Petitioner is required to complywith

the terms and conditions of the vending certificate which specifies her to be a

mobile vendor requiring that she should not vend at any particular spot for

more than 30 minutes.

18. Mr. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the

Petitioner has filed a civil suit in this respect of whether she is a stationary

vendor or not. The Court is not going into the merits of the civil suit, however,

the provisional certificate of vending being clear, it categorically shows that

the Petitioner is a mobile vendor, and she cannot be permitted to be recognised

as a stationary vendor.

19. The submission of Mr. Aggarwal is that this issue has not been

adjudicated as to whether the Petitioner is a stationary or a mobile vendor -

the said adjudication would not be required as the Petitioner’s provisional

certificate of vending itself states clearly that she is a mobile vendor.

20. In view of the above and considering that the barricades around the

Petitioner’s vend have been removed, in the opinion of the Court no other

relief is liable to be granted. The Petitioner shall abide by the terms and

conditions of the provisional Certificate of Vending, including Condition No.

11, which requires her to not vend from any particular spot for more than 30

minutes.

21. The MCD and the police shall take appropriate action to ensure that the

W.P.(C) 11872/2025 Page 15 of 15

Petitioner does not operate as a stationary vendor.

22. Further, in view of the clever concealment of the order dated 28

th

May,

2025 by the Petitioner by not filing the same although it had the duty to do so,

a cost of Rs. 20,000/- is imposed upon the Petitioner to be deposited with the

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The account details of the same

are as under:

Name : Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee

A/c No. : 15530110008386

Bank : UCO BANK

Branch : DELHI HIGH COURT

IFSC : UCBA0001553

23. Insofar as the encroachments by any other shopkeepers in the corridors

of the East of Kailash market are concerned, the MCD is free to take action

against the concerned shopkeepers and remove any encroachments by the

shopkeeper in this regard.

24. The Asst. Commissioner, Dr. Rajiv Nayan is present in Court and has

undertaken to give effect to this order passed by this Court.

25. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending

applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE

MADHU JAIN

JUDGE

APRIL 16, 2026/prg/msh