Facts
The petitioners, Shri Shanker Gupta and Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta, are brothers and joint Tehbazari holders in respect of site No. 134-T-48, N Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
Source reference: p.1, para.2Their joint vending rights had been recognized by the Thareja Committee and subsequently by the Chaturvedi Committee, and a possession letter was issued to them on 22 June 1999.
Source reference: p.2, para.3During a recent NDMC survey, only one brother’s name was proposed to be recorded, allegedly because NDMC’s software could record only one vendor’s name.
Source reference: p.2, para.5; p.3, para.8The petitioners had earlier sought splitting of the Tehbazari licence in W.P.(C) 7559/2023, which was dismissed on 29 May 2023, followed by dismissal of the review petition on 20 November 2023.
Source reference: p.3, para.6They submitted a representation to NDMC on 27 August 2026 and approached the High Court apprehending prejudice if their joint rights were not reflected in the ongoing survey.
Source reference: p.3, para.7Issues
Whether NDMC could record only the name of one petitioner in its survey records when the petitioners’ joint Tehbazari rights had been repeatedly recognized by the competent committees and historical records?
Source reference: p.3, paras.8–10Whether, notwithstanding the limitation of NDMC’s software and the imminent completion of the survey, the petitioners were entitled to have a Certificate of Vending issued jointly in their names, subject to fulfilment of applicable conditions?
Source reference: p.3, para.10Law Applied
Administrative authorities must give meaningful effect to established and repeatedly recognized rights and cannot allow a technical limitation in an information-technology system to cause substantive injustice.
Source reference: p.3, paras.9–10The Court applied the principle of balancing individual rights with administrative expediency by permitting a temporary or interim recording arrangement for completion of the survey while preserving the petitioners’ substantive joint rights at the stage of issuance of the Certificate of Vending.
Source reference: p.3, para.10Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioners’ joint Tehbazari rights were supported by the Thareja Committee’s order, subsequent recognition by the Chaturvedi Committee, and the possession letter issued in 1999.
Source reference: p.2, paras.3–4Accordingly, recording only one petitioner’s name would cause injustice, notwithstanding NDMC’s submission that its software could accommodate only one vendor.
Source reference: p.3, paras.8–9Since the survey was nearing completion, the Court adopted a practical approach: it permitted NDMC to record the elder brother, Shri Shanker Gupta, for the immediate purposes of the survey, while directing that the Town Vending Committee-II preserve and recognize the joint entitlement by issuing the Certificate of Vending in the names of both petitioners, subject to all applicable conditions.
Source reference: p.3, para.10Holding
The petition was disposed of with directions that Shri Shanker Gupta’s name be recorded in NDMC’s survey records, both on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother, Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta, without requiring any further No Objection Certificate for participation in the survey.
The Town Vending Committee-II was directed to issue the Certificate of Vending jointly in the names of both petitioners, subject to satisfaction of all applicable conditions.
Source reference: p.3, para.10NDMC’s counsel was directed to communicate the order to the survey team immediately, and the pending applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: p.4, paras.12–13Original Court PDF
Shanker Gupta & Anr.vsNew Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
