Delhi High Court Protects Brothers’ Joint Connaught Place Tehbazari Rights; Directs Joint Vending Certificate Despite NDMC Software Allowing Registration of Only One Vendor Name
Delhi High Court Directs Joint Vending Certificate for Connaught Place Brothers; Says NDMC Software Limitation Cannot Defeat Historically Recognised Tehbazari Rights
Facts
The writ petition was filed by brothers Shanker Gupta and Anoop Kumar Gupta, who are joint Tehbazari holders in respect of Tehbazari Site No. 134-T-48, N Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
According to the petitioners, their joint vending rights had earlier been recognised by the Thareja Committee and subsequently by the Chaturvedi Committee. A possession letter was also issued to them on 22 June 1999.
The brothers had been vending at N Block, Connaught Place since 1984. In an order dated 14 February 1994, the Thareja Committee recognised their entitlement to one vending site measuring 6 feet × 4 feet, with seniority from 4 July 1984, and specifically contemplated grant of Tehbazari rights jointly to both brothers.
The immediate dispute arose during a fresh survey conducted by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). The petitioners complained that NDMC was proposing to record only one brother’s name rather than recognise their historically established joint rights over the site.
Issues
The principal issue was whether NDMC could record only one brother as vendor during its survey merely because its IT software system was capable of recording only one vendor’s name, despite the petitioners’ joint Tehbazari rights having been historically recognised.
The Court also had to determine how those rights could be protected without disrupting the ongoing survey, which was due to conclude on the very day of the hearing.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners relied upon the historical recognition of their joint Tehbazari rights by the Thareja and Chaturvedi Committees and the possession letter issued in 1999.
They contended that recording only one brother in the ongoing survey would cause severe prejudice, particularly because the survey would ultimately affect recognition of their vending rights.
The brothers had also submitted a representation to NDMC on 27 August 2026, seeking protection of their joint status.
The petitioners disclosed that they had previously filed W.P.(C) 7559/2023, Shankar Gupta and Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council, seeking splitting of the Tehbazari licence. That petition was dismissed on 29 May 2023, and Review Petition No. 322/2023 was subsequently dismissed on 20 November 2023.
The present petition, however, concerned recognition of their existing joint rights, rather than splitting the licence.
Respondent/NDMC’s Arguments
NDMC gave a narrow administrative explanation for recording only one name.
Its counsel submitted that the NDMC IT software system could record the name of only one vendor and not two vendors.
The judgment does not record NDMC disputing the historical recognition of the brothers’ joint Tehbazari rights.
Analysis of the Law
Administrative Technology Cannot Defeat Recognised Rights
Although the Court did not undertake an elaborate statutory analysis, its reasoning establishes an important administrative-law principle.
The Court found that failure to record both petitioners would cause injustice, because their rights had been repeatedly recognised by different committees and they were historically joint holders of the Tehbazari licence.
The inability of NDMC’s software to enter two names was therefore treated as an administrative limitation, rather than a legal basis for extinguishing or diminishing one petitioner’s rights.
The Court specifically observed that NDMC “ought to have ideally made adequate provision in the software for recording of joint names.”
Practical Interim Arrangement
At the same time, the Court recognised that the ongoing survey was stated to be ending on the very day of the hearing.
Rather than disrupting or delaying the survey, the Court devised an interim administrative arrangement: the name of the elder brother, Shanker Gupta, would be entered in NDMC’s survey records for the time being.
This temporary single-name entry was expressly prevented from affecting the substantive joint rights of both brothers.
Final Certificate Must Reflect Joint Rights
The decisive direction concerned the Certificate of Vending (CoV).
The Court directed the Town Vending Committee-II to issue the Certificate of Vending, subject to satisfaction of all applicable conditions, jointly in the names of Shanker Gupta and Anup Kumar Gupta.
Thus, the Court distinguished between a temporary technological accommodation during the survey and the final legal recognition of vending rights.
Precedent Analysis
The four-page order does not undertake any substantial precedent analysis or cite external judicial precedents.
The historical foundation for the petitioners’ entitlement instead came from the Thareja Committee order dated 14 February 1994, which expressly recognised the brothers jointly and granted seniority from 4 July 1984.
The Court also took note of the petitioners’ earlier unsuccessful proceedings seeking splitting of the Tehbazari licence, but did not treat those orders as preventing recognition of the licence in their joint names.
This distinction is significant: the present relief preserved the joint character of the Tehbazari rather than dividing it into separate vending rights.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found the petitioners’ historical position decisive.
Their joint Tehbazari rights had been repeatedly recognised, and they were historically joint holders of the licence. Consequently, excluding one brother merely because NDMC’s software could not accommodate two names would cause injustice.
However, because the survey was ending that day, the Court sought to balance two considerations: protecting the petitioners’ rights and permitting NDMC to complete the survey expeditiously.
It therefore directed NDMC to temporarily record Shanker Gupta’s name for survey purposes, but mandated that the eventual Certificate of Vending be issued jointly to both brothers, subject to satisfaction of the applicable conditions.
The Court additionally directed that no further No Objection Certificate should be demanded from the petitioners merely for participating in the survey.
Shanker Gupta’s name was to be recorded in respect of the Tehbazari licence both on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother, thereby expressly protecting Anup Kumar Gupta’s interest notwithstanding the software limitation.
Given the urgency, the Court directed NDMC’s counsel to communicate the order to the survey team on the same day so that its directions could immediately be implemented.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court protected the brothers’ historically recognised joint Tehbazari rights in the Connaught Place vending site.
For purposes of the ongoing survey, NDMC was directed to record the name of Shanker Gupta, the elder brother, both for himself and on behalf of his brother, without requiring any further NOC.
Crucially, the Court directed the Town Vending Committee-II to issue the final Certificate of Vending jointly in the names of both brothers, subject to satisfaction of the applicable conditions.
The writ petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case: Shanker Gupta & Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13250/2026 with CM APPL. 61625/2026 & 61626/2026
CNR: DLHC010429642026
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan
Date: 10 September 2026
Result: NDMC directed to temporarily record Shanker Gupta for survey purposes and Town Vending Committee-II directed to issue the Certificate of Vending jointly in both brothers’ names, subject to applicable conditions.
