I'll search for judgments on this specific issue from multiple angles — Delhi Metro underground stations, shops encroaching on pedestrian pathways, and related public interest matters.
The initial searches yielded limited results. Let me expand with more targeted queries.
Let me try more specific searches and also search the web to identify the exact issue and any reported cases.
Web search is unavailable, but let me continue with more targeted Indian Kanoon searches and examine the promising results already found.
I've found several promising leads. Let me now examine the most relevant cases and do additional targeted searches.
Let me do a few more targeted searches focusing on specific underground metro stations and DMRC property disputes.
Excellent — I'm finding several relevant cases involving DMRC station box commercial development and encroachment on pedestrian areas. Let me now verify the most promising ones.
I now have a clear picture of the landscape. Let me verify the most relevant cases by reading their key sections.
I've completed an extensive search across Indian Kanoon. Let me present my findings, organized by relevance to your specific query.
Research Results: Shops at Delhi Metro Stations Encroaching on Pedestrian Paths
I searched extensively for the precise scenario you described — underground Delhi Metro stations providing/allocating shops that encroach on pedestrian walkways/paths. While no single judgment addresses that exact fact pattern, I found several closely related lines of cases that, taken together, cover the legal landscape on this issue. I've organized them from most to least relevant.
A. Vendors/Shops Obstructing Pedestrian Access at Delhi Metro Stations
These cases directly deal with commercial activity (vending/hawking) near metro station entrances and exits causing pedestrian obstruction:
1. Vaiso Jain v. NDMC, Delhi HC, 22 July 2016 — Rajiv Chowk Metro Station (underground)
This is the closest case to your query. Rajiv Chowk is indeed an underground station, and the issue was commercial vending obstructing pedestrian pathways near its entrances.
- Facts: The petitioner, an unauthorized vendor near Connaught Place / Rajiv Chowk Metro Station, sought continued right to vend. NDMC submitted that over 200 street vendors were vending near the metro station, blocking entrances, pavements, and footpaths. Approximately 1.5 lakh commuters ingress/egress from Rajiv Chowk Metro Station daily.
- Key Holding: The Court refused protection to the vendor. It held: "Streets are primarily meant for passage, of pedestrians and vehicles and unregulated street vending invariably is an obstruction to movement on the streets." Courts should not grant restraint orders without satisfying themselves that vending is not "an obstruction to free movement on the streets/pavements of the pedestrians."
- Disposition: Interim protection (in force since 2011 — over 5 years) vacated. Petition dismissed.
- Link:
2. Khurshida Parveen v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi HC, 19 Feb 2018 — Nehru Place Metro Station
- Facts: A handicapped vendor was squatting near Gate No. 1 of Nehru Place Metro Station. DMRC itself wrote (letter dated 20.09.2016) to MCD complaining of "blockage of entry/exit of metro station by hawkers, vendors and beggars" causing problems in "smooth movement of passenger services." SDM passed a removal order.
- Key Holding: Court found no infirmity in the removal order — "the petitioner and other street vendors who have been removed cannot be allowed to block the entry and exit gates of the Metro Station." Directed MCD to "take uniform action and ensure that there is no obstruction to free movement of pedestrians."
- Disposition: Petition dismissed.
- Link:
3. National Hawkers Federation v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi HC, 26 Oct 2018 — Akshardham Metro Station
- Facts: 50 members of a hawkers' federation were removed from vending near Akshardham Metro Station. The number of squatters/vendors had "increased tremendously causing inconvenience to the tourist/visitors" and "also to commuters seeking to access the nearby Akshardham Metro station." Visitors from the metro "pass through the footpath" to enter Akshardham Temple — vendors occupied this space. DMRC flagged security concerns.
- Key Holding: Court distinguished licensed commercial operators (like Haldiram's) inside the metro station building from unauthorized vendors — the former are "inside the metro station and are licencees and not on the road or parking lot where members of the petitioners' association sought permission to squat." Deferred to statutory authorities on traffic and security regulation. DMRC confirmed the area had been "cleared of all encroachments towards the parking lot of the metro station."
- Disposition: Petition dismissed.
- Link:
B. DMRC Allocating Commercial Space Within Metro Station Boxes
These cases demonstrate the mechanism by which DMRC provides commercial shop space at metro stations (the "station box" model), though the disputes themselves are commercial rather than about pedestrian encroachment:
4. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Future Retail Ltd., Delhi HC, 12 Apr 2022 — Inderlok Metro Station (underground)
- Facts: DMRC allocated a specified area on the ground floor and first floor within the Station Box at Inderlok Metro Railway Station to Parsvnath Developers Ltd. (PDL) for constructing a shopping complex called "Parsvnath Mall". PDL had the right to sub-license units. The dispute was between PDL and its sub-licensee Future Retail.
- Relevance: Establishes that DMRC allocates commercial space within underground station infrastructure for shopping. The dispute itself was about arbitration over sub-licensing, not pedestrian encroachment.
- Link:
5. Ashima Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Delhi HC, 7 Apr 2021 — Seelampur Metro Station
- Facts: DMRC entered a concession agreement (26.02.2005) with Parsvnath for developing built-up area at ground floor and in subways under the station box at Seelampur Metro Rail Station. PDL constructed "Parsvnath Metro Mall" shopping complex and sub-licensed space. One sub-licensee operated a banquet hall — which DMRC later held was not permissible under the Concession Agreement.
- Relevance: Shows DMRC's model of commercial development in underground/subway areas of metro stations.
- Link:
6. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Delhi HC, 11 Nov 2025 — Tis Hazari Metro Station
- Facts: DMRC invited bids for development of the Station Box at Tis Hazari Metro Station on concession basis. Parsvnath obtained the concession but its sub-licensee (Spencer's Retail) could not obtain a Health Trade License from MCD because MCD demanded sanction plans that DMRC refused to provide. Commercial operations never commenced; DMRC terminated the concession.
- Relevance: Shows regulatory friction between DMRC and MCD over commercial spaces at metro stations. Demonstrates the systemic issue of DMRC creating commercial infrastructure without full MCD clearances.
- Link:
C. Pedestrian Pathway Encroachment Near Metro Station Areas
7. Devendra Kumar & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi), Delhi HC, 23 Feb 2023 — ITO area near metro station
- Facts: Religious structures (Mandir and Masjid) were abutting into the pedestrian pathway on a busy road near ITO. PWD measured the footpath and found only ~2.1–2.3 metres width where 6 metres was required. The road "has access to the Delhi Metro station." When DMRC was carrying out metro station development work, the Masjid was affected and was rebuilt by DMRC.
- Key Holding (Justice Prathiba M. Singh): Larger public interest outweighs devotees' concerns. Places of worship cannot encroach public land and hinder developmental activities. PWD permitted to make pedestrian pathway uniform — "if portions of Mandir/Masjid must be demolished for this, it is permitted."
- Relevance: While the encroachment here is by religious structures (not shops), the legal principles — prioritizing pedestrian pathway width and public access near metro stations — are directly applicable to your scenario.
- Link:
D. DMRC Displacing Shops for Metro Construction / Pedestrian Infrastructure
8. Panchkuian Road Refugee Vyapar Sangh v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 130(2006)DLT553, Delhi HC, 2 June 2006
- Facts: Shopkeepers (Partition-era allottees) were evicted from their shops to make way for DMRC Line-3 Barakhamba Road-Dwarka Metro Rail project and road widening / construction of sidewalk. This is the inverse of your query — shops being removed for pedestrian infrastructure, not shops encroaching on it.
- Key Holding (Justice Vikramajit Sen): Court allowed the writ petitions, holding DMRC failed to pursue proper legal avenues for ejectment of shopkeepers who had decades-long possession. "Governments and Authorities are increasingly disregarding the mandates of the law by riding on the bandwagon of 'public interest'." DMRC's resettlement policy was "not impervious to judicial review."
- Link:
Summary Table
Key Observation
No reported judgment was found on the exact scenario of DMRC itself providing/allocating shops within underground metro stations that encroach upon pedestrian walkways. The case law reveals two separate but related threads:
- Vendors/hawkers near metro stations obstructing pedestrian access (Cases 1–3) — courts consistently prioritize pedestrian access.
- DMRC's commercial concession model of allocating "station box" space for shopping malls (Cases 4–6) — disputes are commercial in nature (rent, licenses, arbitration).
These threads have not yet intersected in reported litigation — i.e., no case challenges DMRC's own commercial concession arrangements as encroaching on pedestrian pathways within the station. If such a case were to be filed, the strongest legal principles would come from Vaiso Jain (streets primarily for pedestrian passage), Devendra Kumar (public interest in pedestrian pathway width near metro stations), and the broader principles in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 (footpaths are public property for pedestrian convenience).
Would you like me to explore any of these cases in greater depth, or search for any related regulatory framework (e.g., DMRC's concession guidelines or Delhi Master Plan provisions on pedestrian zones near metro stations)?