Darshna Malik & Ors. Vs Sanjeev Khirwar & Anr.

The present petition has been filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders dated 10^th November, 2025 and 29^th April, 2026, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 11238/2021 and W.P.(C) 5860/2026, respectively .

¶10

The order dated 10^th November, 2025 passed by the Division Bench, reads as under:

¶11

“1. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), South District, who is physically present in the Court, has assured that he shall re-consider the framing of format and shall issue appropriate 'NOC' as required in the present case within a period of 48 hours from today. Since the statement is coming from the Officer, who is physically present in the Court, same is accepted.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the respondent-MCD submits that once the ‘NOC’ is received, appropriate steps for re-settlement/relocation shall be taken forthwith and compliance shall be reported within a period of three weeks from today.

¶13

3. As far as the issuance of Tehbazari license to others are

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 8.07.2026 16:48:18

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

concerned, we deem it appropriate to keep the said issue open, to be canvassed by the petitioner before the appropriate forum.

¶18

4. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶19

5. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶20

6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.”

¶21

Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the learned Division Bench recorded the statement on behalf of Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), South District, that they shall consider the issuance of appropriate No Objection Certificate (“NOC”), with regard to allotment of Tehbazari sites to the petitioners herein.

¶22

Further, learned Division Bench had directed that the question with regard to issuance of Tehbazari license would be kept open.

¶23

Subsequently, another writ petition came to be filed, being W.P.(C) 5860/2026, titled as Darshna Malik & Ors. Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi, wherein, the order dated 29^th April, 2026 came to be passed, which reads as under:

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 8.07.2026 16:48:18

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 8.07.2026 16:48:18

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

”

¶31

Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the learned Division Bench had recorded that the letter dated 09^th March, 2026 had been received by the petitioners, whereby, approval for re-location to alternate site at V^th Avenue Road, Lodhi Colony (Ward No. 145), New Delhi , had been accorded to the petitioners. However, no site had been identified. Thus, for this purpose, the petitioners were directed to visit the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”).

¶32

Today, learned counsel for the respondent-MCD has handed over to this Court various letters all dated 14^th July, 2026, which are taken on record.

¶33

One of the said letters dated 14^th July, 2026, issued in favour of petitioner no. 1, is reproduced as under:

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 8.07.2026 16:48:18

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

Reading of the aforesaid letter makes it apparent that the MCD has reallocated the Tehbazari site to the petitioners at Andrews Ganj Market, New Delhi (Ward No. 145) .

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 8.07.2026 16:48:18

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

Thus, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondents for the purpose of identifying the exact location, where the petitioners are to be relocated.

¶42

This Court further notes that there was no specific direction by the learned Division Bench with regard to allotment of any specific site to the petitioners. The earlier orders were passed on the basis of the letters issued by the MCD.

¶43

Accordingly, when a fresh letter has been issued by the MCD, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the MCD for the purpose of taking over alternate site of Tehbazari, as allotted to them.

¶44

This Court further notes the submission made by learned counsel for the MCD that re-allocation to a new site has been done, on account of administrative reasons.

¶45

This Court also notes the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioners had earlier been allotted another site at V^th Avenue Road, Lodhi Colony (Ward No. 145), New Delhi , which is still available, and has illegally been allotted by the MCD to be used for the purpose of hawking.

¶46

If that be the grievance of the petitioners, the petitioners can seek appropriate legal remedies in this regard.

¶47

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶48

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶49

JULY 17, 2026/ au

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 8.07.2026 16:48:18

¶52

Page 6 of 6

Darshna Malik & Ors. v. Sanjeev Khirwar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshna Malik & Ors. v. Sanjeev Khirwar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaspreet Singh Anand & Anr. Vs Gudev Singh Anand & Ors.

Sumit Kumar Vs Deepali

Mohd. Shafir Vs Shri Sanjeev Khirwar Commissioner of MCD & Ors.

Nikhat Parveen@Khusboo Khatoon Vs Rafique@Sillu

M/S Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dinesh Kumar & Ors.

Dr Sudesh K Shah Vs Prog Yogesh K Tyagi & Ors.

P S Gosain and Ors. Vs UOI and Ors.

Fedration of All India Private Itis Vs Sh. Ketan Patel and Ors.

Sumit Kumar Vs Deepali

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs Dalip Singh

Krishan Gopal Aggarwal Vs Dalip Singh

EXGS197412X Vehicle Mechanic Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Shree Harpal Singh and Ors.

Rohit Kuamr & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.