Facts
The petitioner’s father was permitted by the NDMC in 1981 to operate a shoe-shining service from a 3 × 3 ft site near Mohan Singh Place, Connaught Place.
Source reference: p. 2–4, paras. 3–9, 12–13After his death, the petitioner’s mother continued vending there; the site was transferred to her in 2014, and she later permitted the petitioner to work from it.
Source reference: p. 2–4, paras. 3–9, 12–13Following her death in 2020, the petitioner applied for mutation, which remained pending.
Source reference: p. 2–4, paras. 3–9, 12–13The petitioner alleged that NDMC officials stopped his vending on 17 September 2026 and sought inclusion in the NDMC’s survey of old tehbazari holders.
Source reference: p. 2–4, paras. 3–9, 12–13NDMC stated that the survey had already been completed and that the petitioner had not participated
Source reference: p. 2–4, paras. 3–9, 12–13Issues
Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking inclusion in the completed NDMC survey should be considered, and his name added if his documents were found genuine
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 16–18Whether the petitioner could continue vending at the site, and subject to what limits
Source reference: p. 5, para. 20Law Applied
The Court considered the petitioner’s request under Article 226 of the Constitution and the NDMC circular dated 16 August 2016, particularly Clause 4(iii).
Source reference: p. 2–3, paras. 2, 10That clause provides that specified changes between non-licence trades not on the negative list do not require NDMC permission; an intimation to the Director (Estate) is sufficient
Source reference: p. 2–3, paras. 2, 10The judgment did not identify any other statute, precedent, or legal test as a basis for its directions.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court noted that the survey had concluded and that the petitioner had not participated, without clarity as to why.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 15–20It also observed from the photographs that the petitioner was vending ready-made garments and that the vending space appeared larger than the allotted 3 × 3 ft area.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 15–20Although challans had been issued in the names of the petitioner’s father, mother, and the petitioner, the Court did not determine the petitioner’s entitlement finally.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 15–20Instead, it directed NDMC to consider his pending representation and add his name to the survey list if the documents were genuine; continued vending was made subject to the applicable conditions and the allotted size
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 15–20Holding
The petition was disposed of with a direction to NDMC to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18 September 2026 and, if the documents were found genuine, add his name to the survey list.
The petitioner was directed to appear before the Joint Director on 7 October 2026 at 2:30 p.m.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 17–21He could vend subject to the applicable terms and conditions, including the 3 × 3 ft size limit.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 17–21Pending applications were also disposed of
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 17–21Original Court PDF
Kuldeep KumarvsNew Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
