$~39 to 46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13^th April, 2026 Uploaded on: 16^th April, 2026.

~39 + W.P.(C) 2962/2026 & CM APPL. 14320/2026 RANJANA CHANDNA .....Petitioner versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS. .....Respondents ~40 + W.P.(C) 2978/2026 & CM APPL. 14384/2026 RAMESH CHAND .....Petitioner versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS. ...Respondents ~41 + W.P.(C) 2979/2026 & CM APPL. 14385/2026 AJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS. .....Respondents ~42 + W.P.(C) 2980/2026 & CM APPL. 14386/2026 MS. PREETI NAGAR .....Petitioner versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS. .....Respondents ~43 + W.P.(C) 3010/2026 & CM APPL. 14516/2026 SUBHASH CHAND .....Petitioner versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS. .....Respondents ~44 + W.P.(C) 3060/2026 & CM APPL. 14791/2026 TANUJA HAROON .....Petitioner versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS. .....Respondents ~45 + W.P.(C) 3061/2026 & CM APPL. 14792/2026 ASHOK KUMAR .....Petitioner versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS. .....Respondents ~46 + W.P.(C) 3062/2026 & CM APPL. 14793/2026 SMT. PARVEEN .....Petitioner versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS. .....Respondents APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

Mr. Kaushal Yadav & Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Advs.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

Mr. Brijesh Yadav, SPC along with Ms. Nikita, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Mr. Anirudh Nagar, Mr. Hari Mohan & Mr. Kunal Chaudhary, Advs., Ms Namrata Mukim Standing Counsel MCD and Ms Niharika Singh, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey SPC, Mr. Sunil Goyal ASC along with Ms. Happy Kumari, Adv., Mr. Pushpinder Singh (SPC), along with Mr. Harsh Wadhwani,Advs.,Mr. KunalRawatSPC(UOI),Dr.IshaanSwaranaSharma, Mr. Ayush, Mr. Shubham Shukla, Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Mr. Mukund Ranjan,Advs.,Mr.ManishKumarSrivastava,Mr.MokshArora,Mr.Santosh Ramdurg, Advs. and Mr. Amit Singh, AGM Legal TPDDL, Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv., Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni (standing counsel, MCD) with Ms. Mansi Jain, Advs., Ms Shilpa Dewan, (Senior Panel Counsel) UOI, Ms Puja S Kalra, Adv., Mr Pushpinder Singh, SPC and Mr. Kushagra Sachdeva, Government pleader, Mr Siddhant Nath, Adv. Mr. Amaan Khana Adv, Mr. Jai Singh Rawat, Adv. for Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Adv, Mr. Chiranjiv Kumar, Mr. Mukesh Sachdeva, Mr. Pranav Arya, Advs., Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel ( Civil ) GNCTD, Ms. Rashi Aggarwal , Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioners who claim to be valid Tehbazari holders & vendors in the Timarpur area, where a demolition action was recently conducted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi/PublicWorksDepartment(hereinafter,‘PWD’)on5thFebruary,2026. 3. The details, including the factual background of the said vendors who have filed these petitions, as stated in their respective petitions are as under:

4. According to the Petitioners, they had applied for valid tehbazari licenses, they were also allotted a license for covered tehbazari and had also deposited the requisite fee.

5. However,sometimeinJanuary-February,2026,adrivewasundertaken by the PWD, along with the MCD, notices were issued to the vendors and under the garb of encroachments, the Petitioners’ tehbazari vends were also removed.

6. The prayer in these writ petitions is for restoring the tehbazari sites of the Petitioners and permitting them to carry out their business until their tehbazari license expires.

7. On the previous dates i.e., on 10th March, 2026 and 11 March 2026, vide separate orders,the Courthadnoted the allegationsof the Petitioners that they were illegally removed by the Authorities. Accordingly, the Court had directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) and the Public Works Department (hereinafter, ‘PWD’) to file their respective status reports in the present petitions to show the manner in which the Petitioners’ vends were recognized as unauthorised encroachments and were thus remo