$~114 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1250/2026 & CM APPL. 6204/2026 PURANA BARDANA MERCHANT ASSOCIATION REGD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Saini and Ms. Saloni Mahajan, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. R.K. Dhawan, SC with Ms. Nisha Dhawan, Mr. Pawan Karan Deo, Mr. V.K. Teng, Mr. K. R. Madhar, Advs. for R1 Mrs Avnish Ahlawat SC GNCTD Services with Mr Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms Aliza Alam, Mr Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for R2-3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking allotment of alternative sites to the members of the petitioner’s association who were selling fruits and vegetables from Azadpur Mandi, Delhi and are being dispossessed.

2. Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that a Civil Suit bearing No. CS SCJ No. 484/2023 was filed by the petitioner. He further draws my attention to the order dated 10.05.2023, wherein the Civil Court granted interim stay which reads as under:-

In the considered opinion of this court, the purpose of filing present suit and application will be frustrated if the request is not acceded. Therefore, the defendant is hereby restrained to demolish the suit property i.e. Jhuggi/Shop, behind and Opposite MCD Park, Transport Centre, Azadpur, Delhi-110033, the portion of occupied space of plaintiffs respectively as mentioned in the suit and specifically shown in the site plan till disposal of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

The plaintiffs are directed to comply order 39 Rule

3 CPC.

Issue summons to defendant on filing of PF, RC, speed post as well as dasti, returnable on 17.05.2023.

Copy of order be given dasti as prayed for with additional copy to be given to the officials of defendant at the spot.”

3. Mr. Saini, learned counsel, states at the bar, that the same was continuing until 28.01.2026, when the suit was withdrawn with the liberty to file the present petition.

4. For the said reasons, issue notice.

5. Mr. Dhawan, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. Ms. Alam, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

6. Mr. Dhawan, learned standing counsel, states that he is appearing on advance notice and is unable to verify the veracity of the injunction continuing till 28.01.2026. Therefore, seeks and is granted 6 weeks to file a reply/obtain instructions.

7. In the present case, the members of the petitioner association are earning their livelihood by carrying out business from the jhuggis and temporary stalls. Until an alternative site is provided or any appropriate decision is taken in that regard, it would, prima facie, cause irreparable harm to the petitioner if the jhuggis and stalls are demolished by the respondent. The balance of convenience lies in the favour of the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner was having an interim order in its favour for a period of more than 2 years. Thus, it is directed that the interim protection granted vide Order dated 10.05.2023 in CS SCJ No. 484/2023 titled Purana Bardana Merchant Association v. Delhi Development Authority shall continue till the next date of hearing, i.e.

14.04.2026.

8. However, if the Court does not agree with the contentions of the petitioner, jhuggis and stalls can always be demolished after adjudication of the stay application.

9. List on 14.04.2026.

JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 29, 2026 / (MS)