Disposed

Sandhya v. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC12 Jul 2024W.P.(C)/9289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought permission to carry on vending activities at a tehbazari site allotted to her deceased husband. The court directed the MCD to allocate an alternate temporary site at Sat Nagar Primary School.

What did the court decide?

Directed MCD to allocate a temporary site at Sat Nagar Primary School for the petitioner to carry on vending activities.

Sandhya Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. — Delhi HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9289/2024 & CM APPL.38097/2024 SANDHYA .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Niraj Chaudhary, Adv. along with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Umang Tyagi, ASC and Ms. Aditi Kapoor, Adv. for R-1 and 2 /MCD.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶9

% 12.07.2024

¶10

W.P.(C) 9289/2024

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition inter - alia praying as under:

¶12

“ To pass an appropriate writ, order and mandamus thereby directing the respondents No. 1&2 either to allow the petitioner to sit / continue her business on the pavement at tehbazari site No. 16566 measuring 6 x 4 feet situated at Ajmal Khan Road, Opposite Bank Street, Near M.C. Jeweller, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-l 10005 or petitioner may be given possession of Tehbazari site near the wall of DMS Road No.8, Baljit Nagar, place No. 86/90, category-III, measuring 6’x4’ and to stop the violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner and for performance and discharging of their duties by the respondents in accordance with law and other own rules and bye-laws, in the interest of justice. ”

¶13

The petitioner states that her husband (since deceased) was allotted a tehbazari site being Site No.86/90, at squatting zone near Wall of DMS Road No.8, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi in category – III. The said site was allotted on 05.09.2001.

¶14

On 04.12.2002, the petitioner‟s husband was re-located. He was

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 00:57:56

¶17

called upon to select either of the sites at Padam Singh Road, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh, Shankar Road, Bank Street, near Wall of Primary School, on or before 15.12.2002.

¶18

Thereafter, the petitioner‟s husband was permitted to carry on his business at the site described as 16566 measuring 6x4 feet situated at Ajmal Khan Road, Opposite Bank Street, Near M.C. Jeweller, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (hereafter the tehbazari site ). 5. It is stated that the petitioner‟s husband expired on 16.10.2020. Thereafter, on 01.10.2021, the petitioner applied for mutation of the tehbazari site in her favour. 6. The petitioner sent a letter dated 30.04.2024 requesting the respondent no.1 to permit her to carry on the business at the tehbazari site in place of her husband. However, the petitioner‟s request has not been acceded to by respondent no.1. This has led the petitioner to file the present petition. 7. Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to carry on any vending activities at the tehbazari site as the same falls in a „nohawking/no-vending zone‟. He also submits that the petition does not set out the complete facts. He disputes the contention that the site at Ajmal Khan Road was allocated in favour of the petitioner‟s husband. He has also handed over a copy of a Circular dated 26.02.2020, which indicates that all the persons (including the petitioner‟s husband), who were unauthorizedly carrying on hawking activities at Ajmal Khan Road, were allocated an alternative site at “the vacant plot of land at Sat Nagar Primary School”. He states that the petitioner is not entitled to allotment of any site in her favour in place of her now deceased husband, because her late husband did not take

¶19

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 00:57:56

¶20

possession of the alternate site, offered to him. Nonetheless, he states on instructions that the petitioner may still accept the alternate site, as indicated in the Circular dated 26.02.2020, i.e. the vacant land at Sat Nagar Primary School. He states that if this is acceptable to the petitioner, the MCD shall take steps to assign a place on a temporary basis to the petitioner at the said site.

¶21

The aforesaid offer was made by Mr. Tyagi on the previous date of hearing (hearing held on 10.07.2024) as well and the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to take instructions in this regard. He states today that the petitioner is ready to accept the allocation of a site at the vacant land at Sat Nagar Primary School on a temporary basis.

¶22

In view of the above, we dispose of the present petition by directing MCD to allocate an appropriate place at the given site (vacant land of Sat Nagar Primary School) to the petitioner to enable her to carry on her vending activities.

¶23

It is clarified that this allotment would be on a temporary basis and would not create any permanent rights in favour of the petitioner.

¶24

The same is also subject to the petitioner complying with all other formalities and on payment of the requisite charges.

¶25

All the pending applications are also disposed of.

¶26

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶27

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶28

JULY 12, 2024/ cl

¶29

Sandhya v. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya v. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Vishal Phogat Vs Employees State Insurance Corpn.

Abhishek Gusian Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Naved-Ul-Islam Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Hindon Mercantile Limited Vs the Government of India and Another

M/S Apn Sales and Marketing Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Ramada Engineering Industry Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi

Mahesh Yadav Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Essence Communication Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax, Audit-Ii, Delhi

M/S M.S. Rainbow Products Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Others

M.M Dhonchak Vs Union of India

Arjun Kolhi & Anr. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Global Impex Vs Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

M/S Paisalo Digital Limited (Formerly Known as M/S S. E. Investments Limited) Vs M/S Sat Priya Mehamia Memorial Educational Trust (Regd.) & Ors.