Rahul Khurana Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

The present petition has been filed seeking direction to the Respondents to substitute the name of Petitioner in the place of his deceased father in accordance with section 5(2) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’).

¶13

The case of the Petitioner is that his father Sh. Kishan Lal Khurana was a duly registered street vendor holding a valid Certificate of Vending bearing Vendor ID No. V2025401348 in the category of ‘General Items’ in INA Market, Delhi. The said certificate of vending was issued to the father of the Petitioner on 29^th September, 2025.

¶14

The Petitioner, who is the son of Sh. Kishan Lal Khurana used to

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:DEEPAK SINGH Signing Da te:2 1.07.2026 17:21:52

¶17

W.P.(C) 9369/2026

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

conduct his vending activities along with his father from the vend. The images of the vend are set out below:

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed By:DEEPAK SINGH Signing Da te:2 1.07.2026 17:21:52

¶22

W.P.(C) 9369/2026

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

The father of the Petitioner is stated to have passed away on 14^th April, 2026. The mother of the Petitioner- Smt. Swarna has already given an NOC dated 1st June, 2026, in favour of the Petitioner which is also on record.

¶25

The prayer of the Petitioner is that his name be substituted in the name of his father in accordance with Section 5(2) of the Act.

¶26

Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner is more than 40 years of age and would not be covered to be substituted in place of his father under Section 5(2) of the Act.

¶27

A perusal of the above facts would show that the case of the Petitioner is that since he was continuously vending along with his father and he has just passed away recently, the vending certificate ought to be transferred in his name.

¶28

Under Section 5(2) of the Act, if a recognized vendor passes away, a spouse or dependent child would be considered for substitution.

¶29

However, the Petitioner being more than 40 years of age, the question is whether factually, the Petitioner, who was carrying on the vending with his father, is entitled to such substitution or not.

¶30

This issue would have to be considered by the NDMC itself, as the same being a factual issue cannot be determined by this Court.

¶31

The photographs of the vend are already on record. The Petitioner appears to be carrying on business from the said vend.

¶32

Accordingly, let the Petitioner appear before the Director Enforcement, NDMC on 03^rd August, 2026 at 11:30 A.M.

¶33

After hearing the Petitioner, the Director Enforcement shall consider the request for substitution in the place of his father and the said decision shall be taken within a period of three months from 3rd August, 2026.

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:DEEPAK SINGH Signing Da te:2 1.07.2026 17:21:52

¶36

W.P.(C) 9369/2026

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

All rights and remedies of the parties are left open.

¶39

If any coercive measures are taken against the Petitioner in the meantime, the Petitioner is free to approach the Court.

¶40

If the Petitioner is found ineligible to be substituted in the place of his father, the Petitioner’s family is free to move an application or a representation to substitute the name of the Petitioner’s mother in place of the father.

¶41