1. Joint teh bazari holders seek recognition of joint ownership of vending site in NDMC survey. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Shanker Gupta – Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) – Respondent
W.P.(C) 13250/2026 | CM APPL. 61625/2026 | CM APPL. 61626/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aastha Dhawan, Vanshika Goswami
For the Respondents: Sriharsha Peechara, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Soumit Ganguli, Ravicha Sharma, Akash Sharma, Shalini Bhardwaj, Sanoli
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aastha Dhawan, Vanshika Goswami
For the Respondents: Sriharsha Peechara, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Soumit Ganguli, Ravicha Sharma, Akash Sharma, Shalini Bhardwaj, Sanoli
Administrative software limitations cannot be used to deny historically recognized joint vending rights; the court balanced administrative expediency with substantive rights by directing the final certificate be issued in joint names.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Vending Rights - Joint Tehbazari License - Refusal to record joint names in a survey due to software limitations is unjust when joint rights have been historically recognized by authorized committees. (Para 9, 10)
(B) Equity and Balance of Rights - Interim Relief - Where administrative constraints exist, the court may direct the recording of a single name for survey expediency, provided the final Certificate of Vending is issued in joint names to prevent prejudice to the rights of the holders. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the NDMC is required to recognize joint ownership of a Tehbazari site in its survey and subsequent certification despite software limitations.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions to issue the Certificate of Vending in joint names.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners assert joint ownership recognized by committees; NDMC says software records only one vendor. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Non-recording of both names would cause injustice; NDMC should have made software provision for joint names. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Administrative authority must ensure its systems accommodate legally recognized joint rights to avoid injustice. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Directed to record elder brother's name temporarily for survey; joint certificate to be issued later. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. Can a municipal authority's software limitation override recognized joint rights?
No, the court held that the authority should have made adequate provision for recording joint names to avoid injustice. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What interim remedy is available when administrative systems cannot record joint ownership?
The court directed recording one owner temporarily for survey, with joint certification to follow, balancing rights and expediency. (Para 10 , 11 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by two brothers, Shri. Shanker Gupta and Shri. Anoop Kumar Gupta, who are joint Tehbazari holders at Tehbazari site measuring 134-T-48, N Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
3. The case of the Petitioners is that the joint vending of the Petitioners is recognized earlier by the Thareja Committee and, thereafter, by the Chaturvedi Committee. The possession letter was also issued to the Petitioners on 22nd June 1999.
4. The Petitioners have been vending at N-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi since 1984. Reliance is placed upon the order dated 14th February, 1994 passed by the Thareja Committee, wherein it has been recognized as under:-
“...Accordingly, I find that the applicant No. 1 & 2 are entitled to one site of 6’ X 4’ with seniority from 4.7.1984. I am extending the benefit for purposes of seniority considering the two files together and had the claims been considered individually I can not rule out that one of the applicant would have failed and the claim of other applicant could have been passed with seniority at a later date. Since they are held joint, the seniority is also considered jointly. In the event the N.D.M.C. is ready to give teh-bazari rights jointly, then the the-bazari rights be given jointly to applicant No.1 and 2. In case the teh-bazari rights is given to individual member, both applicant No.1 and 2 had agreed that teh-bazari rights be given to applicant No.1. Accordingly, the relief shall be granted in favour of the applicant No.1.”
5. The case of the Petitioners is that in the recent survey which has been conducted by the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’), only the name of one of the brothers is being added and the joint ownership of the Tehbazari site is not being recognized by the NDMC. Hence, the relief prayed is that the NDMC ought to record the names of both the Petitioners as existing Tehbazari holders for the said Tehbazari site i.e., 134-T-48, N Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
6. Ms. Aastha Dhawan, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier, the Petitioners had filed a petition before this Court being W.P. (C) 7559/2023 titled ‘Shankar Gupta and Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council’ seeking splitting up of the Tehbazari license. However, the said writ petition was dismissed on 29th May, 2023. The review in respect thereof being Review Pet. 322/2023 was also dismissed on 20th November, 2023.
7. The case of the Petitioners is that severe prejudice would be caused, if in the survey currently being conducted, the joint ownership of the Tehbazari is not granted by the NDMC. Hence, a representation was also filed on 27th August, 2026 by the Petitioners.
8. On behalf of the NDMC, it is submitted by ld. Counsel that the IT software system of the NDMC can record only the name of one vendor and not two vendors.
9. Heard. Clearly, the non-recording of both the names of the Petitioners would cause injustice to the Petitioners in as much as their rights have been repeatedly recognized by various committees and they are historically joint owners of the Tehbazari license.
10. Under such circumstances, NDMC ought to have ideally made adequate provision in the software for recording of joint names. However, at this stage, since the survey itself is stated to be coming to an end today, in order to balance the rights of the Petitioners and ensure an expeditious conclusion of the survey, it is directed that the name of the elder brother i.e., Shri. Shanker Gupta, be recorded in the records of the NDMC for the time being as part of the survey. However, at the time of issuance of the Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’), the Town Vending Committee-II shall issue the CoV, subject to all conditions being satisfied, in the joint name of both the Petitioners i.e., Shri. Shanker Gupta and Shri. Anup Kumar Gupta.
11. In order to participate in the survey, at this
