Facts
The petitioner sought a direction requiring the respondents to consider his 2016 representation and reminder requesting transfer of a Pan Thara licence.
Source reference: p.1, para. 2The licence related to a kiosk originally allotted to Smt. Shyama Devi, whose legal heirs disputed entitlement to it.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–5The kiosk was sealed in 2018; NDMC later refused mutation because of the unresolved dispute among the claimants.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–5This Court upheld that refusal in W.P.(C) 8005/2025, observing that the heirs should resolve their differences and that the petitioner could pursue appropriate legal remedies.
Source reference: pp. 4–7, para. 6In the present petition, the petitioner relied on an MoU dated 14 March 2026, signed by himself and Devi Prasad but not by Praveen Kumar.
Source reference: p.7, para. 7NDMC stated that it intended to take eviction action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Source reference: p.7, para. 8Issues
1. Whether the MoU, which was not signed by all relevant parties, provided a basis to direct NDMC to transfer the Pan Thara licence or grant other relief to the petitioner.
Source reference: p.7, paras. 7–92. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief concerning the licence despite the continuing dispute among the claimed legal heirs.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 6–9Law Applied
The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: p.1, para. 2The Court relied on its earlier decision in W.P.(C) 8005/2025, which held that, absent resolution of the dispute among the claimed legal heirs or an appropriate declaration obtained through legal remedies, the kiosk could not be transferred to the petitioner.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, para. 6The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was mentioned in connection with NDMC’s stated intention to pursue eviction; the Court did not determine that issue in this petition.
Source reference: p.7, para. 8Reasoning
The petitioner relied on an MoU as evidence that the family dispute had been resolved.
Source reference: p.7, paras. 7, 9However, the document lacked Praveen Kumar’s signature, and the Court therefore found it was not duly executed by all parties.
Source reference: p.7, paras. 7, 9Given the unresolved inter se dispute and the prior determination that the licence could not be transferred in its absence, the MoU did not justify directing NDMC to grant relief.
Source reference: p.7, paras. 6, 9Holding
The Court declined to issue directions or grant relief in favour of the petitioner because the MoU was not signed by all parties.
The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.
Source reference: p.7, para. 10Original Court PDF
DevendravsNew Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
