1. Petition seeking transfer of vending license based on representation and MoU among legal heirs. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 21986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Devendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14697/2026 | CM APPL. 68758-59/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashtha Shrivastav, Ajay Pratap Singh, Rohit Pandey, Aryama Dubey, Hridyesh Singh, Adhyayan Gupta, Utkarsh Chauhan, Aditya Tiwari, Mahak, Tannu Agarwal
For the Respondents: Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Sunil Kumar Jha, M.S. Akhtar, Sanjeet Kumar Pawari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashtha Shrivastav, Ajay Pratap Singh, Rohit Pandey, Aryama Dubey, Hridyesh Singh, Adhyayan Gupta, Utkarsh Chauhan, Aditya Tiwari, Mahak, Tannu Agarwal
For the Respondents: Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Sunil Kumar Jha, M.S. Akhtar, Sanjeet Kumar Pawari
A license cannot be transferred to a claimant when there are unresolved disputes among legal heirs, and an incomplete Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) lacking signatures of all concerned parties is insufficient to resolve such disputes.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Transfer of License - Dispute between legal heirs - Transfer of a vending license cannot be granted where there are conflicting claims among legal heirs; the parties must first resolve inter-se disputes or obtain a decree of declaration. (Para 17, 18)
(B) Contract Law - Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) - Execution - An MoU not signed by all necessary parties cannot be the basis for granting relief or directing the transfer of a license. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the transfer of the Pan Thara license based on an incomplete MoU amidst a legal heirship dispute.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims MoU resolves disputes; NDMC opposes citing incomplete signatures and eviction action. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. MoU not duly signed by all parties; no relief can be granted in absence of complete settlement. (Para 9 )
4. A transfer cannot be ordered without a duly executed settlement resolving all inter-se disputes among legal heirs. (Para 9 )
5. Petition dismissed; no directions issued due to incomplete MoU. (Para 10 )
6. Can a court direct transfer of a license based on an incomplete settlement among legal heirs?
No, a court cannot direct transfer if the settlement agreement, such as an MoU, is not duly signed by all relevant parties. (Para 9 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mr. Devendra Kumar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to consider and decide the representation of the Petitioner dated 15th April, 2016 and the subsequent reminder letter dated 26th May, 2016 for transfer of the Pan Thara license bearing EPID No. 0003758 in accordance with law.
3. The Petitioner has filed multiple writ petitions in respect of this very vending site. The last writ petition was filed being W.P.(C) 8005/2025 titled ‘Devendra v. New-Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.’ which was decided vide order dated 16th February, 2026.
4. The Petitioner’s kiosk was sealed on 11th July, 2018. The Petitioner had challenged the sealing by filing writ petition being W.P. (C) 8328/2018 titled ‘Devendra v. New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) & Ors.’ wherein vide judgment dated 13th September, 2018, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed as under:
“4. Having regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dharam Chand (supra), we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of sealing passed by the NDMC. However, we find that post the order of sealing, the NDMC has not made any alternate allotment to the legal heirs of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC has clarified that the alternate allotment could not have been made on account of the ongoing fight between the legal heirs. Counsel further submits that the request for alternate allotment by the legal heirs of late Smt. Shyama Devi would be considered within a period of six weeks after considering the rival claims of Devender and Devi Prasad and any other person who asserts his/her right over the kiosk. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the dispute and as to who would be surviving legal heir of late Smt. Shyama Devi. Needless to say that in case either of the two parties has produced documents in their support, an order would be passed after hearing both the sides and thereafter an alternate allotment would be made.”
5. Thereafter, as per the Petitioner, he submitted an application dated 9th October, 2018 regarding determination of legal heir of Smt. Shyama Devi i.e., the original owner, However, NDMC vide order dated 14th February, 2019 cancelled the license of the Petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Petitioner challenged the same in W.P.(C) 5312/2019 titled ‘Devendra v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.’ wherein the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’) was initially directed to decide the application of the Petitioner for mutation. Thereafter, vide order dated 20th March, 2025, W.P.(C) 5312/2019 was disposed of in the following terms:
“3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14th February, 2019, wherein, the application of the petitioner for transfer/regularization of license of the Pan Thara, Opposite Gate No. B, Supreme Court, near College of Arts, Tilak Marg, had been rejected.
4. This Court notes that during the pendency of the present petition, a speaking order dated 23rd April, 2024, has been passed by respondent no.1 New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”), wherein, it has been decided by the Deputy Director (Estate-01) NDMC, that since there are disputes regarding legal heirs of Late Smt. Shyama Devi, the order dated 14th February, 2019 of NDMC, still stands and the representation of the petitioner herein, regarding regularization of the subject Pan Thara in favour of the petitioner, has been rejected.
5. Accordingly, the present petition, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the speaking order dated 23rd April, 2024, passed by the Deputy Director (Estate-01) NDM
