Vikash Roy v. New Delhi Municipal Council And ORS
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16369/2025 & CM APPL. 67004/2025.
VIKASH ROY .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Ms.
Arthana Brahma & Ms. Samishti Solomon, Advs.
versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS .....Respondents Through:
Ms Neha Rastogi, SPC with Mr.
Animesh Rastogi, Ms.
Kanchan Semwal & Mr. Rajat Dubey, Advs.
Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Standing Counsel with Mr.
Akshat Kulshreshtha & Mr. Soumit Ganguli, Advs. for NDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
% 11.12.2025 1.
The prayer in the petition is for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the goods and to permit the petitioner to carry out vending activities at the designated site.
2.
The fact remains that no Certificate of Vending ('COV') has been issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has been subjected to the survey and the process as regards his claim for issuance of the COV is underway, be that as it may.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
3.
It appears from the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the person who was present at the relevant time when the goods were seized, namely Mr. Pankaj Singh, entered into an altercation with the officials of respondent no.1, which led to the registration of FIR No. 447/2025 at Police Station Sarojini Nagar for offences punishable under Sections 218, 132, 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the complaint of respondent no.2. According to learned counsel for respondent no.1, even if the goods were seized, since the petitioner was not present at the spot, he has no right to claim the goods.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that the goods were not seized in the premises/office registered with them and that the same are lying with respondent no.1, which fact is also endorsed by learned counsel for respondent no.1.
5.
In that view of the matter, we permit the petitioner to appear before the Enforcement Officer of respondent no.1 on 17th December, 2025 at 11 AM with all the relevant documents.
6.
The respondent no.1 shall issue notice to Mr. Pankaj Singh, who was present at the time of seizure of the goods. In case if the petitioner establishes his ownership over the goods, the same be released in his favour in accordance with law.
7.
As regards the other claims put forth by the petitioner, in the absence of a vending certificate, the prayer for permission to vend stands rejected. 8.
The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. 9.
However, we make it clear that, in case in future the petitioner is allotted a vending certificate, he be permitted to vend in accordance with the terms of the said certificate.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
10.
Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J ANISH DAYAL, J DECEMBER 11, 2025 ab/sk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.