MCD's re-allocation of Tehbazari sites for administrative reasons satisfies compliance, permitting petitioners to seek independent remedies for grievances.

The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of orders dated November 10, 2025, and April 29, 2026, passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

The initial order recorded an assurance from the DCP (Traffic) to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for Tehbazari sites and directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to take steps for relocation within three weeks.

Subsequently, in a second writ, the court noted that while relocation to "Vth Avenue Road, Lodhi Colony" had been accorded, the specific sites were not identified.

During the present proceedings, the MCD produced new letters dated July 14, 2026, re-allocating the petitioners to "Andrews Ganj Market" instead of the previously discussed Lodhi Colony site.

1. Whether the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the court's prior directions regarding the allotment and identification of Tehbazari sites.

2. Whether the MCD's unilateral change of the relocation site from Lodhi Colony to Andrews Ganj constitutes a violation of the previous judicial orders.

The court applied the principles of Contempt of Court regarding the enforcement of judicial directions and the scope of "wilful disobedience" under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

It further relied on the principle of Administrative Discretion, acknowledging that updates or changes to site allotments can be made for "administrative reasons" provided there is no specific prohibitory injunction against such changes.

The Court observed that the previous Division Bench orders did not contain a specific mandate to allot a particular, fixed site to the petitioners; rather, they focused on the process of issuing an NOC and identifying "appropriate" sites.

The Court found that by issuing fresh allotment letters on July 14, 2026, for the Andrews Ganj Market, the MCD had taken steps toward compliance.

Regarding the petitioners' grievance that the Lodhi Colony site—originally proposed—was now being used for other hawking purposes, the Court reasoned that such a grievance constitutes a fresh cause of action.

Since the relocation was altered due to "administrative reasons" and an alternate site was provided, the Court determined that the charge of wilful contempt was not sustained.

The Court directed the petitioners to approach the MCD to identify the exact physical location of the new sites at Andrews Ganj Market. Regarding the alleged illegal allotment of the original Lodhi Colony site to others, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to seek "appropriate legal remedies" in a separate proceeding.