A claimed successor to a demolished Tehbazari licence must be included in the survey, subject to document verification.

The Petitioner claimed to have acquired a Tehbazari site, Stall No. 26 near the Recruitment Office, Red Fort, Delhi, from one Salimuddin in 1988 and to have carried on vending activities there since then.

He sought mutation of the Tehbazari licence in his name.

The site was demolished in 2012 in connection with the Delhi Metro project, and no alternate site was allotted to him.

In earlier proceedings, the High Court directed the MCD to consider his representation and subsequently permitted him to participate in the survey of old Tehbazari holders and place relevant documents before the Town Vending Committee-II (“TVC-II”).

In the present petition, the Petitioner sought inclusion of his name in the ongoing survey and, alternatively, allotment of an alternate vending site pending a decision by TVC-II.

The Court noted that elections to TVC-II had been conducted and that the survey of old Tehbazari holders was underway pursuant to the vending plan submitted by the MCD to the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to participate in and be included in the survey of old Tehbazari holders, subject to verification of his documents.

Whether TVC-II should determine the Petitioner’s claim for mutation of the Tehbazari licence allegedly acquired from Salimuddin.

Whether the Petitioner would be entitled to allotment of a vending site upon finalisation of the vending plan, if found eligible.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, under which the local authority is required to prepare a vending plan in consultation with the Town Vending Committee; allocation of fixed vending sites must therefore be considered within the framework of the duly prepared vending plan.

The Court also applied the principle that claims concerning Tehbazari mutation and allotment, particularly where the original site has been demolished, should be considered by the competent Town Vending Committee on the basis of the claimant’s documents and eligibility, rather than through direct judicial allotment.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s entitlement to mutation had not previously been adjudicated and that the original Tehbazari site no longer existed.

Consequently, mutation of the demolished site could not itself be granted, while any claim to an alternate site had to be evaluated under the vending plan by TVC-II.

Since TVC-II was in the process of being constituted and the survey of old Tehbazari holders was underway, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the Petitioner’s opportunity to substantiate his claim.

It therefore directed that he be allowed to participate in the survey and submit documents proving his vending activity and alleged acquisition from Salimuddin.

The Court left the merits of mutation and allotment to TVC-II, subject to verification and eligibility.

All pending applications were also disposed of.