Substitution of Dependent Child in Vending Certificate Under Section 5(2) Requires Factual Determination of Dependency and Eligibility

The Petitioner’s father, Sh. Kishan Lal Khurana, was a registered street vendor holding a valid Certificate of Vending (ID No. V2025401348) for 'General Items' in INA Market, Delhi, issued on September 29, 2025

The Petitioner claimed to have been conducting vending activities alongside his father

Following his father’s demise on April 14, 2026, the Petitioner sought to substitute his name in the vending certificate

The Petitioner’s mother provided a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in his favor

The Respondent (NDMC) opposed the petition, arguing that the Petitioner, being over 40 years of age, does not qualify for substitution as a "dependent child"

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the substitution of his name in the vending certificate of his deceased father under Section 5(2) of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, given his age and claims of continuous vending

2. Whether the Petitioner’s family may seek the substitution of the deceased vendor’s spouse if the Petitioner is deemed ineligible

The court applied Section 5(2) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which mandates that upon the death of a certificate holder, the certificate may be transferred to the spouse or a dependent child

The court also applied the principle that factual determinations regarding eligibility for such statutory benefits are best handled by the administrative authorities rather than through writ jurisdiction

The Court observed that while Section 5(2) allows for substitution by a spouse or dependent child, the Petitioner's eligibility was contested by the NDMC based on his age (over 40 years), which creates a question regarding his "dependency"

The Court noted the factual submission that the Petitioner was actively carrying on business from the vend before and after his father's death, as evidenced by photographs on record

Since the determination of dependency and the continuity of vending are factual issues, the Court reasoned that the Director Enforcement, NDMC, must provide a hearing to the Petitioner to assess the request for substitution

The Court further balanced the scales by providing that if the Petitioner fails the dependency test, the mother (the spouse of the deceased) could alternatively apply for substitution

The Director Enforcement is ordered to decide on the substitution request within three months of the hearing

The Court held that if the Petitioner is found ineligible, the family is at liberty to apply for the substitution of the mother’s name

The Court granted interim protection, stating the Petitioner may approach the Court if any coercive measures are taken pending the decision