Maya v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS.

$~61 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 9622/2025 & CM APPL. 40388/2025 MAYA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ram Narayan Singh, Advocate.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Ms. Urvi Mohan and Mr. Naman Jain, Advocates for GNCTD.

Mr.

Sriharsha Peechara, Standing Counsel for NDMC with Mr. Akshat Kulshreshtha and Mr. Akhilesh Loya, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R

% 18.07.2025 1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2.

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Smt. Maya under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to participate in the survey conducted by Town Vending Committee (hereinafter, 'TVC') of the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, 'NDMC') and issue her a Certificate of Vending (hereinafter 'COV'). 3.

The Petitioner - Smt. Maya W/o Sh. Mukesh Bavaria has filed the present petition praying that she may be permitted to participate in the survey. The case of the Petitioner is that she is selling artificial jewellery near India Gate compound, New Delhi in the NDMC area.

4.

The Petitioner has not placed on record any photographs of any vending The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2025 at 12:36:14

site, vending cart or any such document. The Petitioner has placed on record a challan issued by the NDMC. However, the said challan itself appears to be not a genuine challan. Even the Aadhar Card of the Petitioner shows that she is described as the wife of one Mr. Mukesh Bavaria - however, the NDMC challan describes her as the wife of one Mr. Teg Ram. 5.

As per the records filed with the petition, the correct identity of the Petitioner is not decipherable. There are no other documents to show that the Petitioner has any valid right to vend in the said area. 6.

Moreover, the sale of artificial jewellery near India Gate compound is also not a believable proposition as it is a non-vending zone. 7.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

8.

However, it is directed that the representation of the Petitioner may be dealt by the NDMC in accordance with law, after seeking further documents, if required.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

JULY 18, 2025/nd/ck The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2025 at 12:36:14