Delhi HC dismisses plea against MCD's TVC-2 elections, imposes cost

The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea against the MCD's Town Vending Committee-2 elections, calling it "frivolous" and filed too late. The court imposed a Rs 10,000 fine on the petitioner society for raising general allegations.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the recently conducted elections to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s (MCD) Town Vending Committee-2 (TVC-2), observing that the plea appeared to be based on general allegations and was filed after the elections had already concluded.

A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan also imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the President of the petitioner society, Manav Adhikar Kalyan Mishan Sanstha, for filing what it termed a “frivolous petition.” The Court directed that the costs be paid to the MCD within two weeks.

Petitioner's Allegations

The petition challenged the manner in which the MCD conducted the TVC-2 elections. The petitioner, stated to be a society working for the welfare and rights of street vendors, alleged that candidates had not been properly verified and that some persons holding more than one certificate of vending had been allowed to contest.

Court's Rationale for Dismissal

The Court noted that the elections had already been concluded on August 4, 2026, while the petition was filed nearly five weeks later. It was further observed that the conduct of the TVC-2 elections was crucial for finalising the vending plan for the MCD area.

The bench also took note of the fact that the petitioner had made representations on July 6 and July 7, with the latter having been forwarded by the office of the Minister for Urban Development, GNCTD, to the MCD Commissioner on July 8. However, the Court questioned the locus and authorization of the petitioner society.

When the petitioner was asked about the number of members, he stated that seven vendors were part of the society. The Court noted that their names and details had not been placed on record and there was no authorization from those vendors authorizing Gupta to institute the petition.

The High Court further held that an election challenge could not be brought in the form of a PIL after the election process had concluded and results had been announced. “Any challenge to elections has to be as per law, by filing of an election petition, in respect of a specific candidate or a specific post,” the Court said

The bench also referred to an April 6, 2026, order of the Supreme Court in which directions had been issued to the MCD to conduct the TVC-2 elections within two months.

Petition Dismissed with Costs

Finding that the petitioner appeared to be a “busybody” raising general allegations without a specific basis, the High Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 10,000. The Court permitted the MCD’s counsel to move an application if the costs were not paid within the stipulated two-week period. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)