'RRTS Is Crucial Public Infrastructure Project': Delhi HC Refuses To Interfere With Demolition Of Kiosks At Sarai Kale Khan

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that RRTS constitutes a 'crucial infrastructure project' and given that tehbazari itself is temporary in nature, the development activity cannot be halted.

It observed, “Considering the fact that the tehbazari itself is temporary and the RRTS project is a project in public interest, the Petitioners cannot be seen to argue that they cannot be dispossessed.”

The petition was filed on behalf of the stall occupiers of the tehbazari sites which are stated to be allotted to them by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

The case of the Petitioners was that NCRTC started demolition action after giving only two days' time to the Petitioners to remove their articles, thus violating the principles of Natural Justice.

The Petitioners had also sought relocation of the tehbazari sites as they have valid tehbazari allotments till 31st March, 2026.

Counsel representing NCRTC stressed on the public importance of the RRTC project and submitted that demolition of Petitioners kiosks is necessary in order to undertake the further re-development process.

Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi also opposed the petition, stating that tehbazari itself is temporary in nature.

Upon perusing the photographs of the site in question place don the Court's record, the bench observed,

“the development work is being carried out in the vicinity of the shop itself and in fact, the kiosks of the Petitioners would be coming in the way of the development…The Petitioners shall take out their belongings from the existing kiosks at the tehbazari sites by 5:00 PM on Saturday.”

Insofar as the prayer for an alternative site for tehbazari is concerned, the Court asked the Respondents to take a decision within two months.

Appearance: Mr. Pradeep Divan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohammad Sajid and Mr. Abdullah Bin Masood, Advs. for Petitioners; Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel MCD with Mr. Shivam, Adv. for MCD. Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Adv. for R-2

Case title: Neeraj Gupta & Anr. v. MCD & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 533

Case no.: W.P.(C)-6182/2025

Click here to read order