Substitution of legal heirs in Vending Certificates is subject to dependency verification under Section 5(2) of Street Vendors Act.

The Petitioner, Inder Singh Bawariya, sought a writ of mandamus directing the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to substitute his name in the Certificate of Vending (CoV) No. V2025601698, originally issued to his deceased mother, Late Smt. Gul Bai Bawariya

The mother had previously obtained a court order in W.P.(C) 5113/2025 allowing her to participate in a Town Vending Committee (TVC) survey following the death of her husband, a registered vendor

Although the survey was conducted, she passed away on September 8, 2025, prior to the formal issuance of the CoV, which was subsequently issued in her name on September 29, 2025

The Petitioner, who has a wife and three children, claimed that the family is dependent on the vending site for their livelihood and produced a No-Objection Certificate from his brother

The NDMC opposed the petition, contending that the 36-year-old Petitioner does not qualify as a "dependent child" under the statutory framework and that vending sites cannot be transferred in perpetuity

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the substitution of his name in the Certificate of Vending in place of his deceased mother under the statutory criteria of dependency

Section 5(2) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which governs the succession or transfer of vending rights to family members in the event of the death of a certificate holder

The principle of "dependent child" eligibility as established under the Act and relevant judicial precedents, such as Devi Charan v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr., which restricts transfers to non-dependent legal heirs

The Court examined the Petitioner’s claim of continued vending and financial dependency following the demise of both parents

While the NDMC argued that the Petitioner's age (36 years) disqualified him from being a "dependent child" under Section 5(2) of the Act, the Court did not summarily dismiss the claim

Instead, the Court determined that the factual determination of "dependency" and the verification of credentials required administrative scrutiny

The Court reasoned that the Director Enforcement, NDMC, is the appropriate authority to verify the Petitioner’s documents and eligibility status in accordance with the 2014 Act to resolve whether the substitution is legally permissible

The Court ordered the Petitioner to appear before the Director Enforcement on April 8, 2026, and directed the authority to pass a reasoned decision within four months

The Court clarified that all rights and remedies of the parties remain open during this administrative process