1. Petition seeks inclusion of petitioner name in survey of old Tehbazari licence holders and alternate site. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Balbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 13631/2026 | CM APPL. 63651/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ankit Singh Sinsinwar, Ravi Kumar
For the Respondents: Namrata Mukim
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ankit Singh Sinsinwar, Ravi Kumar
For the Respondents: Namrata Mukim
The court held that a street vendor claiming rights as a successor-in-interest is entitled to participate in surveys and have their mutation request decided by the Town Vending Committee (TVC-II) in accordance with the vending plan under the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
Headnote:(A) Street Vending - Vending Plan - Allotment of sites - Under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014, the allocation of fixed sites to street vendors can only be considered after the preparation of a vending plan in consultation with the Town Vending Committee. (Para 15, 17)
(B) Tehbazari Licenses - Mutation - Successor-in-interest - A person who has acquired rights in a Tehbazari license from an original allottee is entitled to have their representation for mutation considered by the Town Vending Committee (TVC-II) upon its constitution. (Para 14, 8(c))
(C) Procedural Rights - Survey Participation - Street vendors are entitled to participate in surveys conducted for identifying old license holders and produce documents to establish their vending activities to be considered by the Town Vending Committee. (Para 20, 8(a))
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to participate in the survey for old Tehbazari license holders and have his representation for mutation of the license decided by the TVC-II.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims right to mutation of Tehbazari site purchased prior to 1993. MCD contends decision falls under TVC-II. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Petitioner permitted to participate in survey. TVC-II directed to decide mutation within three months and allot site if eligible. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Is a petitioner entitled to participate in a survey of old Tehbazari licence holders while awaiting constitution of the Town Vending Committee?
Yes, the petitioner was granted liberty to participate in the survey and furnish documents for consideration by the TVC-II. (Para 8 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Balbir Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent- Municipal Council of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) to include the name of the Petitioner in the survey that is ongoing for the old Tehbazari licence holders. Further, the Petitioner prays for an alternate site till the Town Vending Committee-II (hereinafter, ‘TVC-II’) takes a decision on the vending plan.
3. Previously, in W.P.(C) 5419/2024 titled Balbir v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , vide order dated 16th April, 2024, the entire factual background of the Petitioner has been captured and the same is extracted below:
“4. The petitioner had filed the aforementioned writ petition being W.P(C) 10361/2023 captioned Balbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , which was disposed of by an order dated 24.11.2023.
5. The petitioner was evicted from the Tehbazari site occupied by him which was described as Stall no.26, locatedatRecruitmentoffice,RedFort,Delhi(hereafter the Tehbazari site) and had not been allocated any alternate site. The petitioner had made a representation in this regard to the respondent,MunicipalCorporation of Delhi (hereafter the MCD) seeking an alternate site. In terms of the order dated 24.11.2023, this Court had directed the MCD to consider the petitioner’s representation along with the document after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
6. The said order was not complied with and the petitioner filed a contempt petition. However, thereafter the MCD heard the petitioner and disposed of the representation in terms of the impugned order.
7. It is the petitioner’s case that he had purchased the TehbazarisitefromoneMr.Salimuddinintheyear1988 and has been carrying on the vendingactivities from the said site since then. The petitioner has also applied for mutationofthesaidsiteinhisfavour,however,thesame was not granted.
8.Itisthepetitioner’scasethatintermsoftheprevalent policy, all persons who purchased tehbazari sites from original allottees prior to the year 1993 are entitled to mutation of the respective sites in their names. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to the benefits of the said policy and, therefore, the Tehbazari site allotted to the Salimuddin is required to be mutated in his favour.
9. It is material to note that the petitioner was evicted from the said site in the year 2000 and had filed a petition being C.W.P. No.3135/2000 captioned Om Prakash Choudhary & Ors v. MCD, along with three otherpetitionersbeforethisCourt.Thesaidpetitionwas disposed of by this Court by an order dated 02.09.2002, whereby this court had directed the petitioners to apply to the MCD for Tehbazari rights within a period of two weeksfromthesaiddate.ThisCourtfurtherdirectedthe MCD to consider the applications in terms of it’s scheme for allotment including the circular dated 09.09.1999 and to take a decision within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The operative part of the said order is set out below:
“In view of aforesaid, I consider it appropriate to direct the petitioners to apply to the respondent-Corporation for tehbazari rights within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent-Corporation will consider the applications in terms of its scheme for such allotment including circular dated 9.9.1999 and take a decision on the same within a period of eight weeks thereafter.”
10. The petitioner states that, although, he had applied to the MCD for allotment of a tehbazari site in terms of the order dated 02.09.2002, but the MCD had not complied with the said directions. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,however, concedes that the petitioner did not raise any grievance in this regard for the last one decade as he states that the petitioner was peacefully vending from the site.
11. Thus, the question whether the petit
