Vending Holder’s Name Must Be Added to the Survey List if Documents Are Genuine.

The petitioner claimed that a 3 × 3 ft. mochi thara site near Rivoli Cinema had been allotted to her father-in-law, transferred to her husband after his death, and then transferred to her by NDMC.

Her name appeared in NDMC’s list of mochi thara holders, and NDMC confirmed the transfer in 2014.

She alleged that NDMC officials stopped her vending on 16 and 17 September 2026, and that her name had not been included in NDMC’s survey of old tehbazari holders.

She had submitted a representation seeking inclusion.

NDMC stated that the survey had been completed and that she had not participated.

The petitioner relied on NDMC’s circular dated 16 August 2016, which provides that certain changes between non-licence trades do not require permission, but only intimation to NDMC.

Whether NDMC should consider the petitioner’s claim and representation for inclusion in the completed survey of old tehbazari holders.

Whether the petitioner could continue vending pending consideration of her claim, and subject to what conditions.

The Court considered Article 226 of the Constitution, under which it could grant appropriate relief in response to the petitioner’s grievance.

Clause 4(iii) of NDMC’s circular dated 16 August 2016 provides that a change from one non-licence trade to another non-licence trade not on the negative list does not require NDMC permission; intimation to the Director, Estate, is sufficient.

The Court noted that the photographs showed the petitioner conducting a ready-made garments vend, apparently in an area larger than her allotted 3 × 3 ft. space.

A 2026 challan in her name nevertheless indicated that her name ought to have been included in the survey, and the Court found no clarity as to why it had not been.

Although the survey was complete and the petitioner had not participated, she had submitted a representation. The Court therefore directed NDMC to consider it and to add her name to the survey list if the documents were found genuine.

Pending that process, vending was permitted only in accordance with the applicable terms and within the allotted dimensions.

If her documents were genuine, her name was to be added to the survey list.

The petitioner could vend subject to the applicable conditions, including the 3 × 3 ft. limit.