Delhi High Court
Subikash Dawn And Ors vs Chairman, Town Vending Committee And ... on 26 May, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th May, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 7129/2025
SUBIKASH DAWN AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aditya, Mr. Vipin Kumar,
Ms.Pralika Chakraborty, Ms. Anjani
Kr. Mishra and Mr. Kailash Kr. Jha,
Advocates.
versus
CHAIRMAN, TOWN VENDING COMMITTEE AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Puja S. Kalra and Mr. Virendra
Singh, Advocates for R-MCD.
Mr.Pranav Proothi and Mr. Anshveer Singh
Nalwa, Advs. for Federation of Lajpat
Nagar.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners, who are 45
Street Vendors, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia,
seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to conduct
the survey of the Petitioners.
3. The case of the Petitioners is that they are street vendors, who are
vending at different areas of Lajpat Nagar and have been excluded from the
survey process by the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter, 'TVC') the
first phase of the survey in the year 2021.
4. The prayer of the Petitioners is that they should be permitted to
participate in the survey being currently conducted by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, 'MCD'), even if they cannot vend so that
in future their rights as vendors is not jeopardised.
5. In support of this prayer, the Petitioner has relied upon an order dated
20th July, 2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 4105/2021 titled
'Federation of Lajpat Nagar Traders Associations v. S.D.M.C. through its
Commissioner & Anr.'. In the said order, the Court had directed that the
survey ought to be completed within two weeks.
6. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the MCD submits that in another
matter involving the same Lajpat Nagar vendors in W.P.(C) 8066/2021 titled
'Redi Patri Footpath Vikrrata Ekta Munch & Ors. v. South Delhi
Municipal Corporation & Ors.', the Court had gone into the entire matter
including the order dated 20th July, 2021 and the Court has come to a
conclusion that since Lajpat Nagar has been declared as No-Vending zone,
no survey can be conducted in the said area. The relevant portion of the said
judgment in W.P.(C) 8066/2021 dated 21st September, 2021 is set out
below:
"18. In compliance of the directions of this Court issued
on 20.07.2021 in W.P.(C) 4105/2021, reproduced above, the
respondent has conducted survey
in presence of SDMC officials and TVC members in Ward
57-S, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 29.07.2021 and
30.07.2021. In relation to the non-vending zones of Lajpat
Nagar, no survey has been conducted. The area which is
declared as a no-vending and no-squatting zone, is being
maintained as such by the SMDC with the help of the Delhi
Police.
XXXX
21. The counter-affidavit of the respondent is clear as to why
Pushpa Market has been declared a no-vending zone and no
hawking zone. On 21.05.1996, the bomb blast took place in
Lajpat Nagar and the primary reason for enormous loss of
lives, property and goods was the delay in reaching the site
by emergency services due to the encroachments by squatters
and hawkers in the lanes of Lajpat Nagar.
22. In a recent case, there was an incident where a fire had
broken out at Nehru Place, which is a high rise district
commercial area. The reason as to why the fire tenders could
not even reach the site of fire was that large areas, which
were meant for movement of pedestrians and traffic, had
been illegally encroached upon by vendors and hawkers.
23. Once an area has been declared a 'no-vending and no-
squatting zone any vendor squatting and vending in that area
does so in violation of the law. Any vendor/squatter who is
vending/squatting in a non-vending and non-hawking zone is
committing an illegality by his actions. They cannot claim
premium on their illegality, by claiming that they too should
be made a part of the survey, to be relocated and given
another place for hawking. Any such relocation by the town
vending committee would tantamount to rewarding the
violators of the law, which cannot be permitted. The same
would be negation of the Rule of Law.
XXXX
27. We feel that "to err is human, but to repeat is foolish". On
account of an omission and an error, there was an enormous
loss of lives, property and goods, as emergency services
could not reach the site of bomb blast in Lajpat Nagar. If the
lessons from that mistake are not learnt or are ignored, we
would be guilty of repeating an omission. We cannot turn a
blind eye to a potential similar situation which may arise in
the future.
XXXX
30. As per the affidavit, in compliance of the directions of this
Court on 20.07.2021 in WP(C) 4105/2021, the survey has
already been conducted in the presence of SDMC officials
and Town Vending Committee members in Ward No. 57-S,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 29.07.2021 and 30.07.2021. As
regards to the survey in the no-vending area of Lajpat
Nagar Ward is concerned, no survey can be conducted in
the same as the said area is not even in consideration.
31. To allow the encroachment of vendors in Lajpat Nagar
Market/Pushpa Market, and thereafter directing survey by
TVC, would amount to putting the life and security of various
individuals and citizens on the line. In deciding between the
vendors' right to livelihood under Section 19(1)(g) of the
constitution, and the safety and security of many more
individuals living in this city, we have to give precedence to
the latter over the former. Without there being any life and
security, no question of right to livelihood can arise. These
two conflicting rights must be read in consonance and be
subjected to reasonable restrictions under the law.
32. Presence of unauthorized vendors/squatting in no-
hawking zone creates mayhem in the area encroached upon
primarily being roads and pavements, which makes it
impossible for people as well as traffic to commute through.
If any vendors are found in a no-vending zone, the same is
a violation of the safety and security of the individuals
living in the city, as well as directives and orders passed by
this Court as well as the Supreme Court as detailed above."
7. Both the ld. Counsels for the Respondents submits that Lajpat Nagar
having been declared as no vending zone, hence, no survey can be
conducted in the said area in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C) 8066/2021
of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
8. On a query from the Court as to why the Petitioner did not disclose
the judgment in W.P.(C) 8066/2021, ld. Counsel submits that the said
judgment is not accessible on the Delhi High Court website. However, in
paragraph 14 of the present writ petition, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners
mentioned the very same judgment in W.P.(C) 8066/2021.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner ought to have disclosed the
said judgment passed on 21st September, 2021 in W.P.(C) 8066/2021, in the
case of similar vendors like the Petitioners itself and ought not to have
simply stated that he did not have a copy of this judgment.
10. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents take severe objection to the stand of
the Petitioner. In fact, ld. Counsel for the Respondent has placed on record
an order dated 03rd May, 2024 in Cont. Cas(C) 321/2021 titled ' Federation
of Lajpat Nagar Traders Association v. S N Srivastava & Ors.' wherein the
same office as that of the ld. Counsel for Petitioner has relied upon the said
judgment in W.P.(C) 8066/2021.
11. Be that as it may, the Court has also conducted a Google search and
noticed that the said judgement is available on the online platforms. There
was, therefore, no question of not finding the said judgment which was a
very relevant judgment for the prayer being sought in this petition.
12. In view of the fact that the area of Lajpat Nagar has been declared as a
No-Vending zone, no survey is liable to be ordered. In view of the deliberate
non-disclosure of a relevant order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, which was in the knowledge of the Petitioners as also their counsel,
the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with the
Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks from today. The bank
details of the Delhi High Court Bar Association reads as under:
● Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association
● A/c No.: 15530100000478
● IFSC: UCBS0001553
● Bank & Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
13. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with all pending
applications.
14. List for confirming compliance of payment of costs on 17th July,
2025.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MAY 26, 2025
v/ck
