Kanhiya Lal v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ORS

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17511/2025 KANHIYA LAL .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Aditya, Mr. Vipin Kumar, Mr.

Anjani Kr. Mishra, Mr. Kailash Kr.

Jha, Mr. Pralika Chakraborty, Mr.

Fariduddin & Mrs. Srejal Mishra, Advs.

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

Ms. Shilpa Ohri, ASC for R-1 & 2.

Mr. Abhishek Khanna, SPC with Mr.

Atul Tanwar & Mr. Ansafer Rahman, Advs. for R-4 & 5.

Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. for R3/GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 18.11.2025 1.

Issue notice.

2.

Ms. Shilpa Ohri, Additional Standing Counsel waives notice for respondent nos.1 & 2- Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Mr. Abhishek Khanna, learned Senior Panel Counsel, waives notice for respondent nos.4 & 5-Delhi Police, and Ms. Vaishali Gupta, learned counsel, waives notice for The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

respondent no.3-Government of NCT of Delhi.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be complying with all the conditions of the Certificate of Vending ('COV'), provided Condition No. 11 of the vending certificate be modified to mean that petitioner will be a non-mobile vendor, as he is permitted to use a gas cylinder/fire.

4.

The COV indicates that petitioner is permitted to use the gas cylinder in the course of vending activities. However, under Condition No.11, the petitioner categorized as a mobile vendor, cannot stay at any specific location for more than 30 minutes. It is difficult to reconcile these two conditions. 5.

In such an eventuality, Condition No.11 of the COV has to be held to be directory and not mandatory qua the petitioner. However, we are equally sensitive to the nature of vending certificate being provisional, and we make it clear that is shall always be open for the respondents to issue final Vending Certificate, if so required, by modifying the said conditions after giving an opportunity of hearing.

6.

In the aforesaid background, the only contention which is canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that the petitioner should be a vendor per terms of the COV and not a permanent vendor by installing the permanent structure to carry out the vending activity. The same can be taken care of in view of the assurance given by the petitioners. 7.

We further clarify, in light of submission made by learned counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner shall not take any liberty to make any permanent structure/ construction for the purpose of carrying out vending activities.

8.

The petition accordingly stands disposed of in the above terms. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

9.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J ANISH DAYAL, J NOVEMBER 18, 2025 ab/as The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.