$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6268/2025 & CM APPL. 28645/2025 SAVITA JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Ojha and Ms.Savita Jain, Advocates versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anshula Bakhru, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 13.05.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM. APPl. 28645/2025 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 6268/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Savita Jain under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent- Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) for allotment of relocated Tehbazari site to the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner is one of the vendors who were originally vending from the last 22 years at Bapu Market, Kashmere Gate. It is stated that the Petitioner was served a relocation letter dated 18th April 2022 wherein it was clearly stated that the Petitioner shall be allotted a Tehbazari site at Mata Sundri Road, Ward-88. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under: 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 22:31:38 “...AND WHEREAS, the issue relating to the relocation of tehbazari sites was examined and the Competent Authority vide Order dated 03.01.2022 has been pleased to approve the relocation of the tehbazari site i.e. in lien of existing tehbazari site No. 3430 previously situated at Bapu Market (Ward No. 84) Chandni Chowk is being relocated the tehbazari at Mata Sundri Road (Ward No-88), New Delhi on the following tehbazari terms & conditions. …” 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite having paid the necessary amount, the site of relocation has not been allotted to the Petitioner, as well to the other similarly placed persons. The same is covered, in fact, by a decision of this Court dated 15th February, 2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) No. 9225/2023 titled ‘Ramesh Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.’. In the said order, the Court had clearly directed the authorities to give possession of the new site in terms of the relocation letter. The relevant portion of the said decision is set out below: “ 11. It is clear from the facts on record that the process of eviction and reallocation was contemplated as a singular process with allotment of a new site following their removal from their sites. The petitioner had been evicted from his tehbazari site for being relocated at a new site. The contention that since the TVC has been constituted, after the petitioner was removed and before he could be relocated. The petitioner would forfeit his right to carry on trade and earn his livelihood. This is, plainly, unacceptable. The relocation process could be stopped midway. 12. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to direct the respondents to give possession of the new site in terms of the relocation letter as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from date. 13. However, we also clarify that the handing over of 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 22:31:38 possession of new site would not create any right in the petitioner in respect of the said site and the same would be subject to any further plans or schemes that may be framed as and when the recommendations are made by the TVC. 14. We clarify that this order is only for the purposes of ensuring that the petitioner is not deprived of his livelihood at the present stage. This would not preclude the TVC or the NDMC from relocating or evicting the petitioner in terms of a vending plan or a scheme that may be framed subsequently. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also confirms, on instructions of the petitioner, who is present in Court that the petitioner would not claim any right in the new site, possession of which would be handed over in terms of the said order. 16. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” 6. In the present case as well, there is a relocation letter dated 18th April, 2022. However, the Tehbazari site is yet to be allotted to the Petitioner. 7. Ms. Anshula Bakhru, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the MCD requires two more months to give the relocated vending site to the Petitioner. Ld. Counsel further submits that there were certain grievances raised by the residents at the Mata Sundari Road and hence, fresh relocation site is being identified. 8. It is made clear that the MCD has an obligation to ensure that the relocated site is duly allotted to the Petitioner, as every day’s delay results in deprivation of the livelihood of the Petitioner and his family members. 9. This matter shall be taken up at the highest level in the MCD and the relocated site shall be handed over to the Petitioner by 10th July, 2025. 10. The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 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 22:31:38 11. List for compliance on 17th July, 2025. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. MAY 13, 2025/Sv/ck 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 22:31:38