Disposed¶35

Ms Sudharshan Khanna v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Feb 2025W.P.(C)/10143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

tehbazari; street vendor; squatting site; alternate site allotment; MCD Karol Bagh Zone; pedestrianization project Ajmal Khan Road; survey 26.06.2019; Circular 26.02.2020; Sat Nagar Primary School; DMS Road site 41/90; Chopra Committee; eligibility certificate; allotment letter 05.09.2001; Supreme Court order 13.02.1987 W.P.(C) 134/87; Article 32; parity 13A Block WEA Karol Bagh; vending plan Section 21 Street Vendors Act 2014; W.P.(C) 10143/2024; Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia; 14.02.2025

What did the court decide?

No substantive prayer allowed; petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petitioner remains at liberty to accept the alternate site offered by MCD and may make a representation for temporary accommodation at 13A Block, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi if vacant sites are available; pending application closed. ¶35

Ms Sudharshan Khanna Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to carry on trade at her present squatting site at Gali No.8, Opposite Madan Store Corner, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi, free from interference by MCD. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

The petitioner's prayer that MCD be restrained from interfering with her tehbazari activities cannot be acceded to.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

A tehbazari holder cannot insist upon allotment of any particular site; the Court rejected the petitioner's demand to be allotted a site of her choosing.

¶30

Key takeaways

The choice of site to be allocated rests with MCD, to be determined keeping in mind the overall capacity of different areas and the inconvenience that may be caused to other stakeholders.ratio¶30
An alternative site was admittedly allotted to the petitioner (pursuant to the Circular dated 26.02.2020 following the 26.06.2019 survey), answering the grievance of non-possession of the originally allotted site.ratio¶30
By way of clarification, the order does not preclude the petitioner from making a representation for being accommodated at the site allocated to other similarly placed tehbazari holders (13A Block, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vibhu Bakhru & Tejas Karia JJ.; order dated 14.02.2025) disposed of a writ petition by a street vendor/tehbazari holder seeking (i) liberty to carry on trade at her existing squatting site at Gali No.8, Opposite Madan Store Corner, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, and (ii) immediate possession of her allotted tehbazari site no.41/90 near the wall of DMS Road No.8, Baljeet Nagar, allotted by letter dated 05.09.2001 pursuant to eligibility certified by the Supreme Court-constituted Chopra Committee (SC order dated 13.02.1987 in W.P.(C) 134/87 having restrained interference with her hawking). Held: a tehbazari holder cannot insist on allotment of any particular site; the choice of site lies with MCD, which must consider the overall capacity of different areas and inconvenience to other stakeholders. After the DMS Authority objected to the Wall of DMS Shadi Pur site (No.57/90), a survey dated 26.06.2019 found 64 tehbazari holders, including the petitioner, squatting unauthorisedly at Ajmal Khan Road amid the pedestrianization project, and Circular dated 26.02.2020 shifted them to alternate sites at the vacant land of Sat Nagar Primary School (petitioner at Sl. No.2). The prayer for restraint against interference with her tehbazari activities was not acceded to. The Court clarified that the petitioner may represent for accommodation at 13A Block, WEA, Karol Bagh along with similarly placed vendors, and MCD may allocate vacant sites there temporarily, till preparation of a vending plan under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014, if it considers fit. Pending application closed.

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 10143/2024 and CM APPL.41589/2024 MS SUDHARSHAN KHANNA .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr M M Kashyap and Mr Yash Vardhan Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR......Respondents Through: Mr Samarth Tyagi, Advocate for MCD. Mr Manashvy Jha, PC for GNCTD.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R

¶8

% 14.02.2025

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as

¶10

under:

¶11

“a. To allow the petitioner to carry on trade at her present squatting site Gali No.8 Opposite Madan Store Corner, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi.

¶12

b. To give possession to the Petitioner of her allotted site no.41/90, near wall of DMS Road No. 8, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi with immediate effect.”

¶13

The petitioner states that she is a street vendor and was allotted an open tehbazari site described as Site No.41/90 at Serial No.110 near wall of DMS Road No.8, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi (hereafter DMS Road Site ) by the Administrative Officer MCD, Karol Bagh Zone. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the allotment letter substantiating her assertion.

¶14

It is the petitioner’s grievance that she has not been given possession of the said site even though the petitioner has been pursuing the concerned officers since past several years.

¶15

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 01/07/2025 at 23:00:18

¶16

The petitioner states that she had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 134/87 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, before the Supreme Court praying that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the petitioner carrying on her trade at the site described as Gali No.8, Opposite Madan Store Corner, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The Supreme Court had passed an order dated 13.02.1987 in W.P.(C) 134/87 restraining the respondents from preventing the petitioner from carrying on her business of hawking at the pavement of Ajmal Khan Road, New Delhi. The petitioner also states that the committee constituted by the Supreme Court (Chopra Committee) had found the petitioner eligible for allotment of tehbazari site and had issued an eligibility certificate. Pursuant to the said exercise, the MCD had allotted her the site near DMS Road Site by an allotment letter dated 05.09.2001.

¶17

As noted above, the petitioner is aggrieved as she has not been given possession of the site allotted to her. 6. MCD has furnished a status report indicating that after the tehbazaari site [Wall of DMS Shadi Pur, Site No.57/90 (Category Type -III)] had been allocated, certain objections had been raised by the DMS Authority. Consequently, the site was not handed over to the petitioner. It is further stated that thereafter a survey was carried out on 26.06.2019 and during the survey it was found that 64 tehbazari holders who had been allocated squatting/hawking sites were squatting at Ajmal Khan Road unauthorisedly. The petitioner is also stated to be one of the said street vendors. These street vendors were allocated alternates site at Sat Nagar, Primary School by Circular dated 26.02.2020. The petitioner’s name features at Serial. No.2 of the said allotment letter (Circular). The relevant extract of the said Circular

¶18

¶19

is reproduced below:

¶20

“ Subject: Shifting of tehbazari from Ajmal Khan Road (AKR)

¶21

In view of the ongoing Pedestrianization project in and around Karol Bagh Area a survey was conducted on 26.06.2019 at Ajmal Khan Road from Arya Samaj Road to D.B. Gupta Road. During the Survey, it was observed, inter alia, that 87-Tehbazari holders who were allotted squatting/hawking sites at places other than Ajmal Khan Road, were squatting from Ajmal Khan Road without permission.

¶22

In order to ensure free movement for pedestrians and removal of encroachment from public land, the below mentioned 64 Tehbazaries including their “present” squatting/hawking site and original allotted site are hereby shifted to the alternate site mentioned against their names with immediate effect. All below mentioned Tehbazari holders are directed to shift their Tehbazari to the alternate site allotted to them within 48 hours. Non compliance of this order shall invite necessary legal action against defaulter. New Site Plan for the alternative site along with stall no. is annexed herewith.

¶23

Sl.No./Stall No.	Names & Father/Husband/Daughter Name (Sh./Smt.)	Site No.	Allotted Site	Presently Squatting	Alternative Site
1	Raj Kumar S/o Sohan Lal	7/90	DMS Wall	Ajmal Khan Road	Vacant Land of Sat Nagar Primary School
2	Sudershan Khanna s/o Sudhir	41/90	DMS Wall	Ajmal Khan Road	Vacant Land of Sat Nagar Primary School
***	***	***	***	***	***

¶24

The above list is provisional and the Tehbazaries mentioned therein are subject to final verification of original allotment letters alongwith site number and other relevant documents such as Aadhar Card of the Original allottee etc at the time of handing over possession.

¶25

This issue with the prior approval of the Competent Authority.

¶26

Assistant Commissioner Karol Bagh Zone”

¶27

¶28

It is apparent from the above Circular that alternative sites were allotted to the petitioner and other tehbazari holders. This was on account of the ongoing pedestrianization project in and around Karol Bagh and the necessity to ensure free movement of the pedestrians and removal of encroachment from public land.

¶29

In the aforesaid context, the street vendors in question were directed to shift their tehbazari to an alternate site within a period of forty-eight hours from the issuance of the Circular. 9. Apparently, the petitioner did not accept the allotment of the alternate site. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said site is not feasible and MCD has already provided another site (13A Block, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi) to eight similarly placed tehbazari h olders. He submits that the petitioner is also entitled to be treated in parity with those street vendors and required to be allotted a site at 13A Block, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

¶30

We are unable to accept that the petitioner can insist for allotment of any particular site. The MCD was required to allocate a suitable site to the tehbazari holders, and, admittedly, an alternative site was allotted to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the MCD also states that the MCD is willing to stand by its offer and the petitioner is at liberty to accept the said allotment. Clearly, the petitioner cannot determine the site to be allocated to her, which would necessarily have to be considered by the MCD keeping in mind the overall capacity of different areas and inconvenience that may be caused to other stake holders.

¶31

In view of the above, the petitioner’s prayer that MCD be restrained

¶32

¶33

from interfering with the petitioner’s tehbazari activities at Rani Jhansi Market, Delhi cannot be acceded to.

¶34

Having stated above, we also think it apposite to clarify that this order will not preclude the petitioner to make a representation for being accommodated at the site allocated to other similarly placed tehbazari holders that is, 13A Block, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. In the event, the MCD finds that there are vacant sites available and the petitioner and other similarly placed persons can be accommodated at those sites on a temporary basis – that is till a vending plan is prepared under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014 – the MCD may allocate such sites to the street vendors in question, if considers it fit.

¶35

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application shall also stand closed.

¶36

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶37

TEJAS KARIA, J

¶38

FEBRUARY 14, 2025 M

¶39

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶40

Ms Sudharshan Khanna v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sudharshan Khanna v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kanushi Enterprises Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Ashi Creation Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Aims Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ramesh Chand Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs Suman Siddh

Sukhvinder Singh Vs the Commissioner , MCD & Ors.

Karan Pal Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Gayatri Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Mohan Lal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Ram Narayan Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.