[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Angad Singh vs The Chairperson Ndmc & Anr on 13 March, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~30 & 33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:13th March, 2026
Uploaded on: 16th March, 2026
~30
+ W.P.(C) 13889/2025 & CM APPL. 15466/2026, CM APPL.
15467/2026
ANGAD SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv. with
Petitioner-in-person.
Mr. N. K. Sahoo, Adv.
versus
THE CHAIRPERSON NDMC & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, SC for
NDMC with Mr. Soumit Ganguli, Ms.
Ravicha Sharma and Ms. Shruti
Agarwal, Mr. Akash Sharma, Advs.
for NDMC.
~33
+ W.P.(C) 3141/2026 & CM APPL. 15110/2026
KAMLESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. K. Sahoo, Adv.
versus
NEW-DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, SC for
NDMC with Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Tripathi, ASC, Mr. Soumit Ganguli,
Ms. Ravicha Sharma and Ms. Shruti
Agarwal, Mr. Akash Sharma, Advs.
for NDMC.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These are two connected petitions which relate to the issue of squatting
at the site in front of Roop Sari Show Room of Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar
Market, New Delhi-110023 (hereinafter, 'site near Shop No.25').
3. There were three claimants to Shop No.25. The names of the said
claimants are as under:
i. Mr. Angad Singh;
ii. Mr. Ramdev Yadav;
iii. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar.
4. Multiple proceedings have been filed before this Court including writ
petitions and contempt petitions. One such writ petition was filed by Mr.
Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar being W.P.(C) 5008/2025 titled
'Ramdev Yadav & Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.' The said
writ petition was disposed of on 22nd April, 2025 and the facts have been
captured therein. In the said order, it is clearly recorded that the chronology
of events begins with W.P.(C) 4806/2024 titled 'Angad Singh v. New Delhi
Municipal Council & Anr'.
5. Mr. Angad Singh had filed W.P.(C) 4806/2024 titled 'Angad Singh v.
New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.' wherein vide order dated 26th April,
2024 it was directed as under:
"1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter
alia, praying as under:
"a). Direct The Respondents to allow the petitioner
for vending at his current vending site to protect
the livelihood of petitioner as the petitioner is a
daily bread earner of his family and also found in
the list of 628 at serial no. 400.
b). Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature
of Pass such other or further orders, as their
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
(NDMC) does not dispute that the petitioner's name
features in the list of 628 street vendors that was
prepared in the year 2012. However, he also states that
the petitioner was found vending at the site near Shop
No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi. He further
submits that, at the temporary stage, the petitioner can
continue to vend at the site near Shop No. 25, Sarojini
Nagar Market, New Delhi. Learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner states that the same would redress his
grievance.
3. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed
of by directing that the petitioner shall not be
interdicted from carrying on vending activities at the
site near Shop No. 25, Sarojini Nagar Market, New
Delhi, subject to the petitioner carrying on the vending
activities in accordance with law (including by
occupying an area not more than 6' X 4' and open to
the sky).
4. We clarify that this arrangement would only continue
till the survey is completed and a vending plan is
prepared."
6. In terms of the above order, the Court had directed that Mr. Angad
Singh would not be interdicted from carrying on vending activities from site
near Shop No.25 so long as he carries out the same in accordance with law.
7. According to Mr. Ram Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Mr. Angad
Singh was squatting near the Delhi Public Library and not in front of shop
No.25. It is their allegation that with the collusion of the police and other
authorities, and on the strength of the order dated 26th April, 2024, they were
removed from Shop No.25 and Mr. Angad Singh took possession of the site
near Shop No. 25.
8. Aggrieved by the removal from the site near Shop No.25, Mr. Ramdev
Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar filed W.P.(C) 16996/2024 titled 'Ramdev
Yadav and Anr. v . New Delhi Municipal Council and Ors.' In the said
petition, vide order dated 9th December, 2024 the writ petition was disposed
of and Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar were permitted to
question the direction given in paragraph 3 of order dated 26th April, 2024 in
W.P.(C) 4806/2024.
9. Pursuant thereto, an application was filed in W.P.(C) 4806/2024 being
Rev.Pet. 7/2024 by Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar. The said
review petition was disposed of vide order dated 21st February, 2025, with the
following observations:
"6. The contention that the address mentioned in the
memo of parties (Near Delhi Public Library)
indicates that the petitioner's place of vending was
not in the vicinity of shop no.25, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi is also not persuasive. We have
examined the map of the area, which indicates that
the Delhi Public Library is in the vicinity of shop
no.25, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi."
10. In view thereof, Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar had
stated that they ought to be reinstated at the site near Shop No. 25.
11. After considering the entire matter in W.P.(C) 5008/2025, vide order
dated 22nd April, 2025, the following directions were issued:
"11. The question as to whether who are the eligible
squatters to squat and vend in front of Shop no. 25
and whether Sh. Angad Singh had placed the full
facts before the Court or not, would be a factual
dispute which cannot be decided in a writ petition.
12. The New Delhi Municipal Council
(hereinafter, 'NDMC') being the authority in the
concerned area would have to call all the three
parties i.e. the Petitioners and Sh. Angad Singh
and verify their credentials properly and fix the site
as to where they can vend.
13. This Court in a writ petition would not be able
to examine these documents and the geographical
location of the sites in questions.
14. Accordingly, in order to avoid any further
confusion in this matter, the following directions
are issued:
a. The Town Vending Committee (hereinafter,
'TVC') shall call the Petitioners and Sh. Angad
Singh along with all the requisite documents to
ascertain as to whether they were vending and if
so, at what location.
b. After verifying the documents and credentials
of all the three vendors, the TVC shall fix the
site where they would be permitted to vend, so
long as the same is not within the nonvending
zone.
c. On the basis of the conclusion which would
be arrived at by the TVC, the Petitioners and Sh.
Angad Singh shall be permitted to participate in
the survey, if any, carried out by the TVC.
15. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of
this order to the Petitioners and Sh. Angad Singh i.e.
Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4806/2024 as also through ld.
Counsel Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, who
represented Sh. Angad Singh in the said writ
petition.
16. The TVC, through its officer Mr. Krishan
Kumar, shall hold a meeting with the Petitioners
and Sh. Angad Singh on 07th May, 2025 at 3:00
P.M. at the following address:
Director Enforcement,
South at Pragati Bhawan,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi..."
S
12. As can be seen from the above order, the Court had directed that all
three parties i.e., Mr. Ramdev Yadav, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar and Mr. Angad
Singh shall be heard by the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter, 'TVC'),
and their documents and credentials shall be verified. After verifying them,
the decision was to be taken by the TVC as to who was to be the eligible
vendor at the site near Shop no.25.
13. Thereafter, a survey was conducted by TVC and both Mr. Angad Singh
and Mr. Ramdev Yadav were found to be ineligible. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar was
held to be the eligible vendor near Shop No. 25.
14. However, Mr. Angad Singh refused to vacate the site in front of shop
no. 25. Hence, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar has filed the present writ petition being
W.P.(C) 3141/2026 seeking the following prayers:
"(a)To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate
writ or direction or order directing the respondents
for permitting the petitioner having CERTIFICATE
OF VENDING(COV) to squat and vend at his place
of squatting in front of Shop No 25 , Sarojini Nagar
Market , Sarojini Nagar , New-23 where he had
been surveyed twice in the year 2018&2025 and
squatting over the period of 25 years ..
b) And to pass such other and further order or
orders as this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in
the interest of Justice."
15. On the other hand, the allegation of Mr. Angad Singh is that he is being
unnecessarily harassed by the concerned officials of the police and NDMC. It
is stated that he is vending in front of Shop No.25. and has filed a complaint
dated 22nd August, 2024 raising allegations of corruption against certain
police officials. Hence, the present petition being W.P.(C) 13889/2025 has
been filed seeking the following prayers:
"a. admit the writ petition against the respondents.
b. please to ISSUE writ of mandamus or any other
writ/direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case whereby direction may be issue to Respondent
No 1 to take proper and suitable action as per law
on complainant cum representation of the petitioner
dated 22.8.2025 against his erring official Mr Rahul
Meena, area inspector of Sarojini Nagar Market
and his team.
c. Please to direct the Respondent No 2 to release
the goods of the petitioner forthwith without any fine
which have been illegally lifted by his area inspector
and his team without fallowing any due process of
law on 19.8.2025.
d. please to pass appropriate order/ direction
against Respondents to ensure that petitioner may
not be further disturbed from his existing place of
vending without any reasonable cause or
justification.
e. Please to allow cost of litigation in favour of
petitioner and against respondents for time and
again forcing the petitioner to knock door of justice
inspite of order in his favour.
f. pass any other order/ relief which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case."
16. The Court has heard ld. Counsels, Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Mr. N.K.
Sahoo and Mr. Sriharsha Peechara.
17. Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi has made the following submissions on
behalf of Mr. Angad Singh:
(i) It is submitted that Mr. Angad Singh is rightly squatting near
shop No. 25 and he ought not to be removed from the said site.
(ii) It is contended that action ought to be taken against one Mr.
Rameshwar Fauzi, who had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on
behalf of the area Inspector from Mr. Angad Singh. The further case of
Mr. Angad singh is that despite the complaint dated 22nd August, 2025
being made against the said official, no action has been taken by the
concerned officials.
18. On behalf of Mr. Ramdev Yadav , Mr. N.K. Sahoo ld.counsel submits
that Mr. Ramdev Yadav deserves to be impleaded in this matter as his interest
is likely to be affected and he was displaced by Mr. Angad Singh.
19. Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, ld. Counsel for the NDMC, has brought to the
notice of this Court certain glaring facts which are relevant. In the status report
filed by Mr. Satish Kumar, the Joint Director Enforcement, (South) NDMC,
various photographs have been annexed to show that Mr. Angad Singh is, in
fact, sub-letting the entire site when the inspection was conducted by the
concerned officials of the NDMC on 6th November, 2025, 17th November,
2025, 22nd November 2025 and 24th November, 2025. The relevant portion
of the said status report and the photographs are as under:
"4. An important factual development, which bears
directly upon the Petitioner's credibility and the motive
underlying his complaint, concerns the outcome of the
2025 Street Vending Survey undertaken by NDMC. It is
submitted that the Petitioner has participated in this
survey, during which his documents and particulars
were scrutinised in accordance with the prescribed
norms Upon assessment, the Petitioner was found
ineligible for being issued a Provisional Certificate of
Vending ("COV"). Conversely, the Petitioner's son,
one Mr Bhupendra Singh, who applied
independently, was found eligible and was duly issued
a Provisional COV. Under the governing policy
framework and the norms applicable to vending within
the NDMC area, a family unit is entitled to only one
vending site. Thus, even assuming the Petitioner had
previously been vending in the area, the lawful
entitlement devolved upon his son alone, and the
Petitioner's own claim to a vending spot cannot subsist
alongside the COV issued to his family through his son.
5. It is submitted that this circumstance is of
considerable relevance, for notwithstanding his
ineligibility, the Petitioner continued claiming personal
rights over the vending spot and, as detailed below,
allowed persons other than himself to operate from it
in violation of established rules.
6. Following the survey, it is submitted that routine
inspections of Sarojini Nagar Market were conducted
on 06.11.2025, 17.11.2025. 22.11.2025, and
24.11.2025. On each of these dates, the Petitioner was
not found anywhere near the vending site. Instead,
four (04) individuals were discovered operating the
stall. When questioned, these individuals stated that
they were each working on a salary of INR 500/-
(Rupees Five Hundred Only) per day on behalf of the
Petitioner. Further enquiry was conducted by scanning
the QR code displayed at the vending spot for customer
payments. It was revealed that the proceeds of the
business were being deposited into an account
belonging to one Mr Purushottam, who has no nexus
with the Petitioner's survey application, the COV
process, or any recognised vending activity. These
findings clearly establish that the vending site was
being sub-let to unauthorised persons, and that the
Petitioner himself was not engaged in vending activity
at all. The said inspections were videographed,
photographed, and independently witnessed.
The photographs of the inspection undertaken on
06.11.2025, 17.11.2025, 22.11.2025, and 24.11.2025
are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-
1 (COLLY).
The videos of the inspection undertaken on the sad
dates are annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE A-2 (COLLY.), provided separately by
way of a pen drive."
20. A perusal of the photographs and videos that have also been filed by
the NDMC would show that third parties are vending from the site near Shop
No. 25.
21. Further, Mr. Peechara also submits that Mr. Angad Singh, having been
found to be ineligible in the survey conducted by the TVC, ought not to be
permitted to vend at the said site.
22. Additionally, it is also submitted by Mr. Peechara that Mr. Angad
Singh's son- Mr. Bhupendra Singh, continues to vend at the old vending place
of Mr. Angad Singh, and is selling ready made garments at the vending site,
Delhi Public Library Corner, near G-402, Sarojini Nagar Market. In this
regard, he has placed before the Court the copy of the vending details.
23. Thus, it is also contended by ld. Counsel for the NDMC that Mr. Angad
Singh and his family members are already vending in front of the Delhi Public
Library Corner, which is the original vending site of Mr. Angad Singh. They
have incorrectly and illegally occupied the space in front of shop No.25, on
the strength of the order dated 26th April, 2024, which is contrary to law.
24. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the
records.
25. Clearly, there are three persons who are staking claims for the site near
shop No.25 and have filed repeated multiple petitions and have caused
considerable confusion.
26. Vide order dated 22nd April, 2025 this Court had taken a
comprehensive view of the matter and had directed a fresh survey and
verification of documents to be conducted by the TVC.
27. Pursuant to the survey that was conducted by the TVC, Mr. Kamlesh
Kumar was found to be the eligible vendor for the site in front of shop No.25.
Thus, Mr. Angad Singh cannot continue to occupy the said site.
28. Pertinently, a show-cause notice has already been issued to Mr. Angad
Singh on 2nd December, 2025 raising the allegations that Mr. Angad Singh
was sub-letting the entire site when the inspection was conducted by the
concerned officials of the NDMC. The relevant portion of the show cause
notice dated 2nd December, 2025 is as under:
" SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated
26.04.2024 in W.P.(C) 4806/2024, granted interim
relief in your favour for carrying out vending
activities at the designated site near Shop No. 25,
Sarojini Nagar Market, subject to compliance with
the applicable norms--specifically, that the vending
area shall not exceed 6 ft x 4 ft and must be located
in an open to-sky space.
Whereas, several routine inspections of Sarojini
Nagar Market were conducted by the Enforcement
Inspector (SN Market), during which the following
observations were made:
i. You were not found present at your designated
vending site on 06.11.2025, 17.11.2025,
22.11.2025, and 24.11.2025.
ii. Instead of you, four (04) other individuals were
found operating your stall.
iii. These individuals were selling goods at your
site using UPI/QR code transactions.
iv. The vending area being used was found to be
larger than the permitted 6 ft x 4 ft.
The above actions constitute unauthorized
occupation, misuse of vending permission, and
violation of court-ordered conditions.
In view of the above, you are hereby called upon to
show cause and explain your position on account of
above violations within 4 days from the receipt of this
notice. Any unsatisfactory reply or failure to respond
shall be viewed seriously and may lead to
cancellation of the permission granted to you.
This notice is issued with the prior approval of
Director (Enforcement), South."
29. A reply dated 8th December, 2025 is stated to have been filed by Mr.
Angad Singh claiming that he had certain medical issues, due to which in
November, he had permitted certain vendors to vend from the site near Shop
No. 25.
30. Be that as it may, the show-cause notice and the proceedings thereunder
would continue in accordance with law.
31. However, in the meantime, since the survey has been undertaken by the
NDMC, and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar has been held to be the eligible vendor for
the site near Shop No.25, Mr. Angad Singh cannot continue to occupy the said
premises.
32. In so far as Mr. Ramdev Yadav is concerned, post the survey was
conducted, he had already filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) 18871/2025
which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12th December, 2025 in
the following terms:
"Since the petitioners do not possess a 'Certificate of
Vending' under the provisions of the Street Vendors
(Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending)
Act, 2014, no case for showing indulgence in our
extraordinary jurisdiction is made out.
2. The petition, as such, stands dismissed.
3. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. "
33. The allegation that Mr. Ramdev Yadav was not permitted to participate
in the survey is completely bereft of merit as NDMC was under an obligation
to verify the credentials in terms of the order dated 22nd April, 2025, passed
by this Court. The same has already been done by the NDMC.
34. Under these circumstances, the following directions are issued:
i. Mr. Angad Singh is granted three days' time i.e., till 17th March 2026,
to vacate the site near Shop No.25,voluntarily. In the event of failure to
comply with the same, within the stipulated period, he shall be removed
from the site near Shop No. 25 on 18th March 2026, in accordance with
law.
ii. The site near Shop No. 25 shall be handed over to Mr. Kamlesh Kumar.
iii. In so far as Mr. Ramdev Yadav is concerned, his case lacks any merit.
However, his application for impleadment is allowed.
iv. In so far as the show-cause notice issued to Mr. Angad Singh is
concerned, the same shall be proceeded in accordance with law. After
hearing Mr. Angad Singh, the orders shall be passed by the NDMC in
accordance with law.
v. In so far as the complaint dated 22nd August, 2025 of Mr. Angad Singh
is concerned, the same shall be looked into by the Director
Enforcement, NDMC and if any of the officials or any other third party
is found to be in violation of law, appropriate action shall be taken by
the NDMC.
35. This order shall be placed by Mr. Angad Singh, Mr. Ramdev Yadav
and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, in any other proceedings, which may be filed by
them before this Court.
36. Lastly, this Court does not approve of the fact that Mr. N.K. Sahoo, ld.
Counsel, seeks to appear for both Mr. Ramdev Yadav and Mr. Kamlesh
Kumar, who are staking claims for the same site near Shop No. 25.
37. Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, ld. Counsel has also informed the Court that
Mr. Sahoo, ld. Counsel, used to appear for Mr. Angad Singh earlier.
38. Accordingly, Mr. N.K. Sahoo is cautioned that in future he should
ensure that such conflict of interest does not arise when he appears.
39. The videos handed over in a pendrive by the ld. Counsel for NDMC
shall be downloaded and be tagged along with the electronic record of this
Court.
40. The present two petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
41. The next date of hearing i.e., 22nd May, 2026, stands cancelled.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MARCH 13, 2026
b/sm
