1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking inclusion in a town-vending survey and verification of a vending-site claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 22095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Yashoda Rani – Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14472/2026 | CM APPL. 67887/2026 | CM APPL. 67888/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kirti Uppal, Kiran Kalra Uppal, Shaini Bhardwaj, Vedic Thukral, Avichal Mishra, Rukhsar Khan, Pratham Diwakar
For the Respondents: Sriharsha Peechara, Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Soumit Ganguli, Ravicha Sharma, Akash Sharma, Tanishka Grover, Charvi Virmani, Shaila Arora, Vaishali Gupta, Aanchal Rajput
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kirti Uppal, Kiran Kalra Uppal, Shaini Bhardwaj, Vedic Thukral, Avichal Mishra, Rukhsar Khan, Pratham Diwakar
For the Respondents: Sriharsha Peechara, Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Soumit Ganguli, Ravicha Sharma, Akash Sharma, Tanishka Grover, Charvi Virmani, Shaila Arora, Vaishali Gupta, Aanchal Rajput
The court directed the NDMC to consider a vendor's representation for inclusion in a survey list based on genuine documentation, while emphasizing that any vending activity must strictly adhere to the allotted site dimensions.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Survey of Vending Sites - Failure to participate in a survey does not automatically preclude a vendor from seeking inclusion if genuine documents and evidence of possession, such as official challans, exist. (Para 15, 16)
(B) Vending Regulations - Change of Trade - Under NDMC circulars, a change from one non-license trade to another non-license trade (not in the negative list) does not require specific permission, and a simple intimation to the Director Estate is sufficient. (Para 11)
(C) Compliance - Vending Size - Permission to continue vending activities is subject to strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the allotment, specifically that the size of the vend must not exceed the allotted dimensions. (Para 19)
Issues: Whether the Petitioner is entitled to be included in the survey of old tehbazari holders and have her claim regarding the subject site verified.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- article 226 (Para 2)
-
writ jurisdiction
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued that change from a non-license trade to another requires no permission under NDMC circular. NDMC argued survey already completed. (Para 11 , 12 )
3. Court noted petitioner was not included in survey, photographs show larger vending area, and a challan supports her claim. (Para 14 , 15 )
4. Administrative authority must consider pending representation before finalizing survey, ensuring fair opportunity and compliance with vending terms. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Petition disposed of; NDMC directed to consider petitioner’s representation and, if documents are genuine, include her name in the survey. (Para 20 )
6. Can an authority refuse to include a vendor in a survey after the survey is completed?
No, the court directed the authority to consider a pending representation before finalizing the survey, ensuring fairness. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. What is the effect of a change from a non-license trade to another non-license trade?
Under Clause 4 (iii) of the NDMC circular, no specific permission is required for such a change; only an intimation to the Director Estate suffices. (Para 11 )
8. What conditions must a vendor comply with when permitted to vend after a survey?
The vendor must vend strictly according to the terms and conditions, including maintaining the allotted vending size. (Para 19 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, ‘NDMC’) and the Town Vending Committee (hereinafter, ‘TVC’) to include the Petitioner’s name in the survey carried out by the NDMC as also to verify the Petitioner’s claim in respect of Mochi thara being MT-09, near Rivoli Cinema, Connaught Place, New Delhi, measuring 3x3 ft (hereinafter, ‘subject site’).
3. The brief background of the Petitioner’s case is that, the Petitioner’s father-in- law – late Shri. Ram Prasad is stated to have been allotted the subject site, and was rendering shoe-shining services from the said site. However, he passed away in 2006.
4. Upon the demise of the Petitioner’s father-in-law, the subject site was transferred in favour of Petitioner’s husband vide order dated 27th July, 2010, issued by the NDMC.
5. However, the Petitioner’s husband – late Shri. Raju also passed away on 14th March, 2012.
6. Thereafter, the Petitioner applied for transfer of the subject site in her favour, and the same was accepted. The NDMC has also issued a list of ‘Mochi thara’ holders. The Petitioner’s name finds mention at serial No. 29 of the said list.
7. Further, it is also stated that the transfer of the subject site in favour of the Petitioner was confirmed vide order dated 17th January, 2014 issued by the NDMC, and the Petitioner was carrying on her vending activities therefrom.
8. It is also the case of the Petitioner that on 16th September, 2026 as also on 17th September, 2026, certain officials of the NDMC visited the subject site, and restrained the Petitioner from carrying on the vending activities as a ready-made garments vendor.
9. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, despite the transfer of the subject site in her name, the name of the Petitioner is not being reflected in the official records, and the formal recognition of the transfer of the trade name from shoe-shining activity to ready-made garments activity has also not been carried out. Hence, the present petition, praying that the Petitioner may be included in the survey/clarification being carried out by the NDMC, as also that her claim in respect of the subject site be verified.
10. The Petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 18th September, 2026 to NDMC, for her inclusion in the ongoing survey of the old tehbazari holders.
11. Mr. Kirti Uppal, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in terms of the circular dated 16th August, 2016, bearing No. D-1043/SO(Estate-I)/2016, when there is change from non-license trade to non- licence trade activities, the same does not require any specific permission. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Clause 4 (iii) of the said circular. The said Clause is extracted below:
“Clause 4. Change of Trade xxxx (iii) For (a) change from ‘licence trade’ to ‘non-licence trade which is not in the negative list’, or (b) change from ‘non-licence trade’ to ‘non-licence trade which is not in the negative list’, or (c) grouping of non-licence trades which are not in the negative list, permission from NDMC will not be required, and an intimation, without any fee/increase in licence fee, to the Director Estate, NDMC shall be sufficient for the same.”
12. Ld. Counsel for the NDMC submits that the survey in the area near the subject site was conducted from 27th July, 2026 to 10th September, 2026, and the said survey has already been completed. However, the Petitioner does not appear to have participated in the said survey.
13. Heard. The photographs which have been placed on record by the Petitioner are extracted below:-
14. A perusal of the photographs placed on record by the Petitioner would reveal the following:
(i) That the Petitioner appears to be running a ready-made garments vend;
(ii) That the size of the vend appears to be
