$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010379712026 + LPA 642/2026 & CM APPLs. 54609-10/2026 PRAKASH CHANDRA TIWARI .....Appellant Through: Mr.Abhay Mani Tripathi, Adv. with Ms.Palak Agrawal, Adv. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL CIVIL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri, Panel Counsel for R-1/GNCTD. Mr.Raghunath Pathak, Adv. for MCD. Ms.Shobhana Takiar, SC for R- 3/DDA with Mr.Kuljeet Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 17.08.2026 CM APPL. 54611/2026 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 54608/2026 (for condonation of delay) 3. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of 317 days’ delay in filing the appeal. 4. Having perused the averments made in the application and also This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 11:13:09 considering the fact that the appellant is likely to be affected by the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, the prayer made therein is allowed and the delay of 317 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The application stands disposed of. LPA 642/2026 & CM APPLs. 54609-10/2026 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri, learned counsel representing the Government of NCT of Delhi, Mr.Raghunath Pathak, learned counsel representing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ms.Shobhana Takiar, learned counsel representing the Delhi Development Authority. 7. The appellant alleges himself to be the shop owner of Shop Nos. 5, 6 and 7, CSC, DDA Market, near City Apartment, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi-110096. 8. He seeks to challenge in this intra-court appeal the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby W.P.(C) 6996/2025 instituted by the respondent no. 4 has been disposed of with certain directions. 9. What we find from a perusal of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is that relying upon a status report submitted by the Station House Officer (“SHO”) of the Police Station concerned, it has been noticed by learned Single Judge that action against the encroachment is being taken on regular basis by local police. The SHO concerned has further been directed to ensure that barricading near the temple be done during festival seasons in order to ensure regulation of traffic and movement of pedestrians This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 11:13:09 and the people visiting the temple in question. So far as the aforesaid direction is concerned, the learned Single Judge has only directed the police concerned to make arrangements for ensuring regulation of traffic and movement of pedestrians and therefore, the appellant cannot be said to have any grievance in respect of the said direction. 10. Learned Single Judge has also directed that MCD shall ensure that guidelines of the MCD in respect of sale of non-vegetarian food are duly complied with and no non-vegetarian food or meat, etc. are sold within the specified distance of the temple in terms of the policy. 11. It has been argued by learned counsel representing the appellant that pursuant to the said direction issued by learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 22.09.2025, the MCD has issued directions to the appellant not to sell the non-vegetarian food. His submission is that the said direction since has been issued pursuant to the order passed by learned Single Judge, 22.09.2025, as such he has instituted the proceedings of the instant appeal. 12. The aforesaid submission, in our opinion, merits rejection for the reason that the direction issued by learned Single Judge in the impugned order are only in respect of following the guidelines and the rules so far as the sale of non-vegetarian food is concerned. In case the said guidelines are wrongly been applied to the appellant while he is being asked not to sell the non-vegetarian food or the guidelines are not applicable to the appellant, such issues can be decided in case any such direction issued by the MCD is challenged by the appellant. 13. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. However, it is needless to say that it will be open to the appellant to challenge any direction verbal or in writing which may have This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 11:13:09 been issued by the MCD requiring him not to sell the non-vegetarian food from his shops, by taking recourse to a legal remedy which may be available to him in law. 14. We also make it clear that we have not made any observation as to the merit of the respective claims of the parties. 15. In view of the above, the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J AUGUST 17, 2026 “shailndra” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 11:13:09