Allowed

Prem Kumar & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delfii & Anr.

Delhi HC22 Sept 2025W.P.(C)/12150/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed an MCD order cancelling petitioners' tehbazari certificates. The Court held the show cause notice was vague, denied livelihood rights under Article 19, and ordered the MCD to renew certificates within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03rd January 2018 is quashed and set aside. The petitioners have the right to continue their activities and the respondent is directed to renew their certificates within eight

Prem Kumar & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~9 & 10

¶2

IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 11347/2023 JAMAN LAL & ORS. .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Advocate. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Arman Monga, Advocate for MCD. (10) + W.P.(C) 12150/2023

¶5

PREM KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELFII & ANR.

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Arman Monga, Advocate for MCD.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 22.09.2025

¶12

All these petitioners are holding tehbazari certificate and have questioned the impugned order dated 03^rd January 2018, whereby the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 25/09/2025 at 12:50:01

¶15

tehbazari of petitioners was directed to be sealed.

¶16

Petitioners, by way of mandatory order, are seeking directions to respondent to permit the petitioners to carry out their activities at the site at old UP Bus Stand near S.P. Marg, Delhi, earlier ward no. 84 and now Ward no. 74.

¶17

The necessary facts for deciding the present petition are as follows:

¶18

i. Petitioners claim that respondent had issued them tehbazari certificates pursuant to an application made by them or, in some cases, as permitted, the change of hand/transfer of tehbazari sites. Each site for which tehbazari was permitted, admeasuring 7X8, 17X12 or 6X4.

¶19

ii. It is claimed that tehbazari certificates issued to petitioners were subject to the conditions incorporated in the certificates granted to that effect, which also specify the area permitted to be used for the purpose of tehbazari .

¶20

iii. According to the petitioners, respondents claim that they have inspected the sites of petitioners on 13^th December 2017, and have noticed the following shortfalls:

¶21

a) Original allotee was not found at the site.

¶22

b) Dhaba was found running at the site.

¶23

c) Occupier has encroached upon the MCD land beyond permitted site.

¶24

d) The occupier was found storing inflammable items, hazardous articles, i.e. gas cylinder, Tandoor, Bhatti & Store etc .

¶25

Show Cause Notice was issued on 14^th December 2017, directing the petitioners to submit their explanation to the same. It is claimed that reply to the Show Cause Notice was not found satisfactory and in violation of terms

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 25/09/2025 at 12:50:01

¶28

of tehbazari certificate. Therefore, the permission was withdrawn and cancelled.

¶29

It is the contention of counsel for petitioners that even if it is taken that the Show Cause Notice was issued to petitioners, the same was too vague to answer.

¶30

He claims that the notice broadly references general violations by petitioners, such as absence of the original allottee, the dhaba being managed by all the petitioners, encroachment on the municipal land and the occupier holding inflammable items, hazardous articles, etc., which are stereotyped.

¶31

He urges that if the original allottee was not found, information/details about another person who was found at the place of the incident should have been mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, therefore, ground raised to that effect is too vague to answer.

¶32

According to him, a stereotyped condition is incorporated for each of the petitioners running dhaba at the site in question. 9. It is further claimed that the encroachment alleged to have been carried out by petitioners is not enumerated, and the certificate itself mentions that petitioners are permitted to carry out the tehbazari activity in the area. 10. It is further argued that it was the responsibility of respondent to specify in the Show Cause Notice the exact area of encroachment, including its dimensions and other relevant details.

¶33

Counsel for petitioners further urges that if petitioners were found violating the conditions of tehbazari certificate, it was open for respondent to take appropriate action against petitioners; however, draconian measures of taking recourse to the cancellation of tehbazari permission, which amounts to denial of livelihood and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 25/09/2025 at 12:50:01

¶36

Even otherwise, it is claimed that the opportunity of personal hearing was never afforded to the petitioners, and that being so, the order impugned is not sustainable.

¶37

As against above, counsel for respondent contends that it is incumbent on the part of the petitioners to conduct themselves in the terms and conditions of the certificate, violation of which is specifically reflected in the Show Cause Notice. It is claimed that the term for which the certificates in question were issued has expired, as admitted in the rejoinder, inferring that the petitions have rendered infructuous.

¶38

He further claims that once petitioners failed to demonstrate sufficient cause while replying to the show cause notice, respondents were justified in cancelling the tehbazari permission. 14. As such, he claims that the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 15. We have considered the rival claims; the very Show Cause Notice issued to petitioners pre-supposes that petitioners were granted the tehbazari certificates to vend. Show Cause Notice, rightly so claimed by counsel for petitioners, speaks of petitioners carrying out the tehbazari activity, which is running a dhaba . It is difficult to accept that each of petitioners was in the same business of running dhaba , at least to the extent that no material to substantiate such claim has been put forth by respondent on record, particularly when it is specifically claimed that such cause relied on by respondent is stereotyped.

¶39

Similarly, both the show cause notice and the impugned order rely on the claim of the non-availability of the original allottee as one of the reasons for the actions taken. Neither in the show cause notice nor in the order it is provided that, in the absence of original allottee, who was found to be vending

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 25/09/2025 at 12:50:01

¶42

under the tehbazari certificate.

¶43

Apart from the above, the fact remains that claim of encroachment being made by petitioners over and above the area mentioned in the tehbazari certificate is not at all specified in the Show Cause Notice. As such, the respondent has relied on vague and general allegation against the petitioners to victimize them and cancel the tehbazari certificates granted in their favour. 18. Similarly, there exists substantial substance in the claim put forth by counsel for petitioners that in case if petitioners were found using such articles which are otherwise not permissible in tehbazari activity, it was open for respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioners, instead of taking recourse to the draconian action of cancellation of the permission. 19. As such, not only are the causes cited in the Show Cause Notice too vague to answer, but there is also a denial of personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 20. In light of the above, there is reason to believe that the impugned actions and the order were specifically targeted at the petitioners, with the intention of evicting them from the site in question, without adhering to the proper legal procedures. 21. Merely because the period for which the tehbazari certificates were issued has expired, that by itself will not lead to drawing an inference that the cause cited in the petition is infructuous. We are equally required to be sensitive to the fact that when the petition was brought before this Court, the certificate was valid, and it is only thereafter the cancellation was ordered. As such, merely because the period for which the certificate was issued, which in this case used to be from year-to-year basis, has expired, it cannot be said that the petitions have been rendered infructuous.

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

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 25/09/2025 at 12:50:01

¶46

That being so, the impugned order dated 03^rd January 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶47

We hereby direct and declare that petitioners have every right to continue with their activities of tehbazari on the sites which are mentioned in the certificate issued to that effect. 24. Respondent shall take every step to renew the certificates of the petitioners for carrying out tehbazari activity and issue the renewed certificates in favour of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶48

The fact remains that the tehbazari certificates issued in favour of the petitioners creates a temporary right in them to earn their livelihood, which is part of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and is recognized as a fundamental right.

¶49

We were also open to permit counsel for respondent to withdraw the proceedings in question against the petitioners and take recourse to a fresh in accordance with law; however, counsel for respondent expressed his inability, for want of appropriate instructions from respondent to that effect.

¶50

However, we deem it appropriate to leave it to the discretion of the respondent. In case they intend to proceed against the petitioners, they are at liberty to do so after the certificates are renewed. However, such action, if any, by respondent in the matter of cancellation or re-location of the petitioners to other site, must be in accordance with law and that too only after following the principles of natural justice.

¶51

The petition is allowed in above terms.

¶52

Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶53

This is a digitally signed order.

¶54

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 25/09/2025 at 12:50:01

¶55

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court

¶56

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶57

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶58

SEPTEMBER 22, 2025/RK

¶59

This is a digitally signed order.

¶60

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 25/09/2025 at 12:50:01

Prem Kumar & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delfii & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kumar & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delfii & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Devi and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Prem Colour Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Sarpal Vs the High Court of Delhi

Shanti Amar Singh College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

M/S Cofe Impex Private Limited & Ors. Vs Sh. Chaman Singh Negi H/O Smt. Bharti Negi (Deceased) & Ors.

Arun Vs District Magistrate (North) & Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Bsesrajdhani Power Limited and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Hav Raghubir Singh

Virpal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity (Spenbio) Vs Union of India through Secretary, Govt of India Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change

Social Action for Forest and Environment Vs Union of India

Sakshi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi Jal Board Vs Union of India and Ors.

Delhi Jal Board Vs Union of India & Ors.