TVC-II must decide tehbazari holders’ grievances after survey and vending-plan finalisation.

The petitioners, claiming to be original tehbazari holders in the Chandni Chowk area, alleged that Mr. Jagdish Prasad had established a stall/shop adjacent to the petitioners’ Site No. 1, Link Road, near the Parade Ground Wall, Ward–Chandni Chowk, thereby obstructing ingress and egress to the petitioners’ stall.

They had earlier approached the High Court in W.P.(C) 13271/2021, which directed the MCD to decide their representation expeditiously.

In subsequent contempt proceedings, the MCD stated that the adjoining stall had been shifted by seven feet to avoid inconvenience to the petitioners.

During the present proceedings, the Court noted that a survey of tehbazari holders had commenced for finalising the vending plan in MCD and NDMC areas.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to an immediate direction for removal of the adjoining alleged unauthorised tehbazari stall/shop on the ground that it obstructed access to their stall.

Whether the petitioners’ grievance regarding the location and allotment of tehbazari spaces should be considered within the ongoing survey and vending-plan process under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

Whether the matter required adjudication by the duly constituted TVC-II after completion of the survey and finalisation of the vending plan.

The Court applied the statutory framework of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, under which the survey of street vendors and formulation of a vending plan precede proper recognition and allotment of vending spaces.

The Court relied on the principle that disputes concerning the status, location and allotment of tehbazari holders should be considered through the competent vending-plan and Town Vending Committee mechanism.

The Court also noted the petitioners’ reliance on Gainda Ram & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. concerning the protection claimed by original tehbazari holders.

The earlier directions in W.P.(C) 13271/2021 required the MCD to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation, while the subsequent contempt proceedings resulted in the adjoining stall being shifted by seven feet.

The Court found that the immediate grievance had already been addressed to some extent because the MCD had shifted Mr. Jagdish Prasad’s stall by seven feet pursuant to the contempt proceedings.

It also took judicial notice that a comprehensive survey of tehbazari holders was underway as part of the process of finalising the vending plan for Delhi.

Since the petitioners claimed to be original tehbazari holders, their status and spatial grievance could appropriately be examined in that statutory process rather than through an isolated direction for removal of the adjoining stall.

The Court therefore directed that, after completion of the survey and finalisation of the vending plan, the petitioners’ grievance be considered by TVC-II, which was the appropriate forum for determining vending-related allotments.

It directed that, upon completion of the survey and finalisation of the vending plan, the petitioners’ grievance be considered by TVC-II in their capacity as tehbazari holders.

TVC-II was directed to take a decision within three months of its constitution.

All pending applications were also disposed of.