Sukhdev Yadav v. New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Anr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010385732026 Date of decision: 19th August, 2026 Uploaded on: 21st August, 2026 + SUKHDEV YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Adv. versus NEW-DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, ASC for NDMC with Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Amit Dogra, SPC with Mr. Manish Rawat, GP for R-3. Mr. Anshveer Singh Nalwa, Adv. for Sarojini Market Shopkeepers Association. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶1This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶2The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking permission to participate in the survey which is to be conducted by the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, 'NDMC').

¶3The 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.

¶4The Petitioner has placed on record the photograph of Petitioner's vend which is set out below:

¶5The 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.

¶6Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance upon the status report dated 25th July, 2026, to contend that the NDMC has stated that the survey would be conducted on humanitarian grounds.

¶7The Court has heard Mr. N.K. Sahoo, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Tushar Sannu, ld. ASC for the NDMC.

¶8First, 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.

¶9Secondly, the said photograph reveals that the Petitioner has put up a table in front of the other vendors, who may be vending in the Sarojini Nagar area.

¶10Thirdly, the Petitioner has not participated in the survey which was conducted earlier. The said survey, which already stood concluded, cannot be reopened now as the elections for TVC-II have been conducted and the vending plan is in the process of finalisation.

¶11Further, 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.

¶12The Petitioner does not fall in any of the aforesaid categories.

¶13Since the Petitioner has not participated in the survey already conducted, no relief can be granted at this stage. However, this would not in any manner affect the rights of the Petitioner to participate, in terms of Section 4(2) of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, in any future survey that takes place.

¶14The NDMC is also at liberty to take action in accordance with law, as the Petitioner is clearly an unauthorised vendor.

¶15The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE AUGUST 19, 2026/dss/sm