$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 998/2025 USHA RANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr N K Sahoo, Advocate. versus NEW-DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS.....Respondents Through: Mr Sriharsha Peechara with Mr Akshat Kulshreshtha, Mr D.S. Bhanu and Mr Chinmay Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 28.02.2025 CM APPL. 12183/2025 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exemptions. 2. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 12182/2025 3. The petitioner has filed the present application, inter alia, praying as under: “(a) to seek indulgence of Hon’ble Court praying for modification /clarification of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPC NO.998 /2025 on 27.01.2025 to the effect that whether respondent’s letter/order dated 22.01.2025 being distinguishable on the facts and applicable for her case to be decided by TVC which is not congruous to Order dated 10.09.2024 passed in W.P No 179/2017 as well as to the para 11 of the judgment and order dated 04.09.2024 passed in W.P No 9622/2020 when alternative site being identified among the sites identified for others without leaving scope for allotment of alternate site be made by concerned by TVC as per respondent’s letter /order dated 22.01.2025.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:30:22 4. It is the petitioner’s case that her husband was carrying on his vending activities and was identified as one of the 628 street venders who were found to be eligible for participating in the allotment of Taibazari spaces in the year 2012. The petitioner now claims rights for allocation of a Taibazari site as a legal heir of the deceased husband. 5. Mr Sahoo, the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submits that since the petitioner’s husband was one of the persons identified for being permitted to vend at a site, the petitioner should be entitled to do so in his place. 6. The aforesaid contention was considered by this court on 27.01.2025 and this court had rejected the contention that the petitioner would be entitled to allocation of the given site at this stage. 7. It is material to note that no site can be allotted to any street vendor at this stage. The same is required to be done at a later stage by the concerning Town Vending Committee/Municipal Authorities in terms of the Scheme under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation Street Vending) Act, 2014 and at the stage of preparation of a vending plan under Section 21 of the said Act. 8. We find no merit in the present application and the same is dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J FEBRUARY 28, 2025/tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:30:22