Surviving heirs may continue vending from an existing tehbazari site, subject to verification and licence conditions.

The petitioners, three surviving daughters of the original tehbazari holder, sought recognition and transfer of a 3 × 3 ft vending site near Rivoli Cinema, Connaught Place.

The site had been allotted to their father in 1981, transferred to their mother in 2014, and used by her for selling readymade garments. After their mother’s death in 2021, the petitioners applied for transfer, which remained pending.

They alleged that NDMC officials prevented them from vending in September 2026 and sought inclusion in NDMC’s survey and transfer of the site. NDMC stated that the survey had already concluded. The Court noted that the petitioners’ vend appeared larger than the allotted area and that the petitioners had not participated in the survey.

1. Whether the petitioners, as the surviving heirs of the previous tehbazari holders, could seek verification and inclusion in the survey for recognition of the vending site.

2. Whether the petitioners could obtain permission to vend readymade garments from the site, subject to the applicable vending conditions and the allotted size.

The Court considered Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which it was asked to grant relief concerning the petitioners’ claimed right to continue vending and have their documents and claim considered.

It also considered Clause 4(iii) of NDMC’s circular dated 16 August 2016, which provides that specified changes between non-licence trades not on the negative list require no prior permission, and that intimation to NDMC is sufficient.

The Court further proceeded on the basis that an existing tehbazari licence should not be denied to the heirs so long as its conditions are observed; the judgment cites no precedent or additional statutory provision for this proposition.

The Court treated the parents’ longstanding tehbazari licence and the petitioners’ claim as sufficient to warrant verification rather than immediate exclusion, notwithstanding that the NDMC survey had concluded and the petitioners had not participated in it.

It directed verification of the petitioners’ documents and made inclusion in the survey list conditional on their genuineness. It also directed the TVC-II to consider the change in vending category to readymade garments.

In light of the photographs showing a vend apparently larger than the licensed area, the Court expressly confined any vending to the allotted 3 × 3 ft space and the applicable conditions.

TVC-II was also directed to consider permitting vending of readymade garments. The petitioners may vend only in accordance with the applicable conditions and within the allotted 3 × 3 ft area.