Disposed

Ramesh Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another

Delhi HC15 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/9225/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A tehbazari holder evicted from Bapu Market for an underground car parking project challenged MCD's failure to hand over possession of his allotted relocation site at Mata Sundari Road, citing the pending Town Vending Committee survey under the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The court held the ongoing relocation process could not be interdicted midway and directed MCD to give possession within four wee

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramesh Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~67

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9225/2023

¶4

RAMESH GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Sudhir Kumar Ojha, Advocate. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Ms Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr Virender Singh, Advocate for R-1/MCD with Mohd. Razi Alam Khan, AC, City S.P. Zone and Mr Lalit, JLO, City S.P. Zone. Ms Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel for DDA with Ms Latika Malhotra and Mr Kuljeet Singh, Advocates. Mr Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel for GNCTD with Mr Jatin Dua, Advocate.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU O R D E R

¶6

¶7

15.02.2024

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a letter dated 18.04.2022 (relocation letter) issued by respondent no.1 (hereafter ‘ the impugned letter ’). The petitioner was informed that the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (since merged with Municipal Corporation of Delhi – MCD) had approved redevelopment/reconstruction of multi-level underground car parking at Gandhi Maidan, City S.P. Zone. Accordingly, the petitioner was allotted a tehbazari site ( tehbazari site No. 1513041 previously located at Bapu Market (Ward No.84), Chandni Chowk) and was

¶9

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 04/07/2025 at 01:50:12

¶10

required to be removed for development of the multi-level car parking facility. MCD decided to relocate them at Mata Sundari Road (Ward No.88), New Delhi on certain terms and conditions.

¶11

In terms of the said impugned letter, the petitioner paid the requisite fees on 22.03.2022. It is the petitioner’s case that since the possession of the new tehbazari site at Mata Sundari Road was not handed over to the petitioner despite the petitioner complying with the conditions, the impugned letter be quashed. The petitioner, essentially, seeks that he be restored to the original tehbazari site – tehbazari Site No. 1513041 at Bapu Market (Ward No.84).

¶12

A Status Report has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1. The same indicates that there were 122 persons similarly placed as the petitioner, who were removed from the Bapu Market, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi-110006 for the construction of a multi-level underground car parking. It is stated that similar relocation letters were issued to the said 122 tehbazari holders. Out of the said persons, 100 tehbazari holders appeared before the concerned authorities and 22 tehbazari holders did not take the necessary steps. It is stated that the Scrutiny Committee found that 43 tehbazari holders (out of 100 tehbazari holders that had appeared before the concerned authorities) were eligible for allotment letters, succession certificates etc. The same was approved by the Commissioner of NDMC on 23.04.2018 and the said tehbazari holders were relocated at the new site. 57 tehbazari holders were found to be ineligible because of deficiencies and unavailability of documents such as allotment letters, succession certificates etc.

¶13

It is stated that on 15.08.2021, another committee was constituted to

¶14

¶15

process the cases of the remaining 57 tehbazari holders. Out of the said persons, there were no responses from 3 tehbazari holders and 9 cases were recommended for relocation. Additionally, cases of 10 tehbazari holders were recommended to be rejected.

¶16

The concerned committee decided the cases of the remaining 35 tehbazari holders and it was decided that the cases would be further examined after issuance of the deficiency letters. It is stated that the petitioner is one of those 35 tehbazari holders, who had been issued deficiency letters. The deficiencies were addressed and thereafter, relocation letters were issued to 32 tehbazari holders including the petitioner.

¶17

It is stated that the physical sites could not be handed over to those persons as a Notification was issued by the Government of NCT, Delhi on 17.09.2019 constituting the Town Vending Committee (hereafter ‘ TVC ’) in terms of Rule 13 of the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2017 (hereafter ‘ the Rules ’). The initial TVC, would conduct the survey and the second TVC would be constituted after the survey was completed and elections were conducted. Sub-paragraphs 5 and 6 of paragraph 7 of the Status Report are relevant and are set out below:

¶18

“v. As per available records, the petitioner belongs to the list of these 35 cases which were subject to further examination and issuance of deficiency letters. As per available records, after addressing the deficiencies, Relocation Letters were issued to them as such there are 32 individual files and the petitioner is one of them.

¶19

vi. However, issuance of the Relocation Letter couldn’t result

¶20

¶21

into allocation of a physical site to the petitioner due to notification of Town Vending Committee (TVC) by Govt. of NCT Delhi on 17.09.2019. Copy of the letter dated 17.09.2019 is annexed herewith as Annexure-F . As per Rule 13 of the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2017, the mandate of the initial Town Vending Committee may be seen as below:-

¶22

“ ........ that the initial Town Vending Committee will discharge its function as for the purpose of survey and the issue of certificate of vending and it shall ensure that once the survey is complete, the elections are conducted within six months.””

¶23

It is clear from the above that there is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to a tehbazari site at Mata Sundari Road. However, the petitioner and such similarly situated tehbazari holders have not been relocated/ rehabilitated because the mandate to make a TVC in terms of Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereafter ‘ the Act ’) and according to Rule 15 of the Rules, the vending plan is required to be made by the local authorities in consultation with the TVC.

¶24

It is also relevant to refer to Section 18 of the said Act, which reads as under:

¶25

“ 18. Relocation or eviction of street vendors .–(1) The local authority may, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, declare a zone or part of it to be a no-vending zone for any public purpose and relocate the street vendors vending in that area, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.

¶26

(2) The local authority shall evict such street vendor whose certificate of vending has been cancelled under section 10 or who does not have a certificate of vending and vends without such certificate, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.

¶27

¶28

(3) No street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority from the place specified in the certificate of vending unless he has been given thirty days' notice for the same in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.

¶29

(4) A street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority physically in such manner as may be specified in the scheme only after he had failed to vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice.

¶30

(5) Every street vendor who fails to relocate or vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice, shall be liable to pay for every day of such default, a penalty which may extend up to two hundred and fifty rupees, as may be determined by the local authority, but shall not be more than the value of goods seized.”

¶31

Since in the present case, the TVC has not completed the survey as yet and a vending plan has not been put in place, the relocation of the petitioner is effectively interdicted.

¶32

We are unable to accept that the process of relocation of the petitioner could be interdicted midway as has been done by the respondents.

¶33

It is clear from the facts on record that the process of eviction and reallocation was contemplated as a singular process with allotment of a new site following their removal from their sites. The petitioner had been evicted from his tehbazari site for being relocated at a new site. The contention that since the TVC has been constituted, after the petitioner was removed and before he could be relocated. The petitioner would forfeit his right to carry on trade and earn his livelihood. This is, plainly, unacceptable. The relocation process could be stopped midway.

¶34

In view of the above, we consider it apposite to direct the respondents

¶35

¶36

to give possession of the new site in terms of the relocation letter as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from date.

¶37

However, we also clarify that the handing over of possession of new site would not create any right in the petitioner in respect of the said site and the same would be subject to any further plans or schemes that may be framed as and when the recommendations are made by the TVC.

¶38

We clarify that this order is only for the purposes of ensuring that the petitioner is not deprived of his livelihood at the present stage. This would not preclude the TVC or the NDMC from relocating or evicting the petitioner in terms of a vending plan or a scheme that may be framed subsequently.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also confirms, on instructions of the petitioner, who is present in Court that the petitioner would not claim any right in the new site, possession of which would be handed over in terms of the said order.

¶40

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶41

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶42

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶43

FEBRUARY 15, 2024 RK

¶44

Ramesh Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramesh Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Lal Vallath Vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Anr.

Ms Jeewan Lata Sud Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 16(1), Delhi & Ors.

Salim Kujur and Ors. Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Anr.

Times Internet Limited Vs Pcit, DELHI-7 and Ors.

Shyam Prakash Vs Directorate of Vigilance & Anr.

Reebok India Company Vs Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Gaurav Singh Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle No 31(1) & Anr.

Salim Kujur and Ors. Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Anr.

M/S Ottimo Visuals Vs M/S Essel Housing Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Hanumant Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Veritas Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Akeel Ahmed Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Samshudin Miya Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Virender Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another