High Court of DelhiCONT.CAS(C)/898/2025

Vinod Kumar v. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Commissioner Mcd And ORS

2025-05-30Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal7 pages

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 898/2025 CM APPL. 35713/2025 VINOD KUMAR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.

with Mr.

Shivani Verma, Ms.

Samishti Solomon, Ms. Renu, Ms.

Pragya Jaishwal and Mr. Harshit Bahal, Advs.

versus SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, COMMISSIONER MCD AND ORS .....Respondent Through:

Ms. Tajinder Virdi, SC for MCD.

Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with Ms.

Minakshi Singh and Mr. Mritunjay Kr. Singh, Advs. for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 30.05.2025 1.

This petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of judgment dated 19th September 2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 12296/2023. The directions were in the following terms: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and Ms. Shivani Verma, counsels appear for the petitioner and state that petitioner was vending in the South Zone, however, his kiosk has been demolished on 13th May 2025, as evident from the following photographs:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Ms. Tajinder Virdi, counsel appearing for the NDMC, however, states that the directions in the orders were clear and they were to vend strictly in compliance with the terms and conditions of the COV. 4.

She states that the terms of the COV do not allow the vendor to be stationary as per Clause 11 and instead, he had directed an almost permanent kiosk which had, therefore, to be demolished. 5.

Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Counsel for NDMC states that they have no difficulty in permitting the petitioner to continue to vend in South Zone, Ward S-33, strictly in compliance with the terms of the COV. 6.

Accordingly, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, counsel for the petitioner, does not wish to press his petition on the basis of the said submission/undertaking.

As regards Mr. Mishra's contention that the petitioner is a stationary vendor, he is at liberty to agitate the issue before the appropriate Court. 8.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

are rendered infructuous.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J MAY 30, 2025/MK/bp The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.