Munsi Prasad Mehta vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 24 April, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 29 April, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 5535/2026
MUNSI PRASAD MEHTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya, Mr. Vipin Kumar, Mr.
Anjani kr. Mishra, Mr. Kailash kr.
Jha, Ms. Pralika Chakraborty, Mr.
Fareeduddin, Ms. Srejal Mishra, Adv.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Mehernnisa Anand Advocate for
MCD, Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel
Counsel (Civil ) GNCTD, Ms. Rashi
Aggarwal ,Advs.
Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms. Priyanka
Jindal, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mr. Munsi Prasad
Mehta under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking
directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to peacefully vend from
the vending site on the footpath, alongside ISBT Boundary Wall, near Foot
over Bridge, Kashmere Gate, City-SP Zone, Ward 83-N, New Delhi
(hereinafter, ‘the vending site’) .
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 5535/2026 Page 1 of 6

3. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a street vendor, who has been
selling cold drinks, water bottles and other items from the vending site for
several years. The Petitioner has been issued a provisional Certificate of
Vending (hereinafter, ‘CoV’) bearing URI No. 1673141 under the category
of ‘ Others’ for City-SP Zone, Ward -83-N.
4. The photograph of the Petitioner’s vend, which is placed on record, is
extracted below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 5535/2026 Page 2 of 6

5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he has not been allowed to
peacefully vend from the vending site, and has been forcefully removed from
time to time, by the concerned officials of the MCD and Delhi Police.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the recent
judgment of the Supreme Court dated 9th April, 2026 in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) 21349/2025 titled ‘Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T.
Chandigarh and Ors.’ .
7. On the other hand, Ms. Mehrunissa Anand, ld. Counsel appearing for
MCD submits that the place where the Petitioner is vending from, is a non-
vending zone.
8. Further, ld. Counsel for the MCD has handed over a list of nearby
vending areas in the Kashmere Gate ISBT area, and submits that the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 5535/2026 Page 3 of 6

would have to move to the said vending areas, since no vending is permitted
along ISBT boundary wall due to the traffic congestion which is caused.
9. It is also her submission that the street vendors ought not to be
permitted in the ISBT area, owing to the safety and security concerns in the
said area for passengers, tourists and other travellers.
10. The Court has considered the matter. The Supreme Court in Malkit
Singh and Anr. (supra) , has observed as under:
“[...]
11. While the efforts carried out thus far have
apparently borne results and are therefore
appreciable, it is a matter of concern for us whether all
relevant efforts have been made to regularize such
hitherto illegal vendors, including those who are not
before us, by granting them space in designated
vending zones so as to ensure minimum disruption to
their livelihood in the long term. Any action by the
State that disrupts this livelihood must therefore be
carried out with care, fairness, and a clear sense of
responsibility.
If vending zones have already been identified and
designated, it is not enough for the authorities to
simply point to their existence. Removing vendors
from familiar locations, even for legitimate public
reasons such as easing congestion or improving
urban order, creates an immediate need for support.
Vending zones are meant to provide a lawful and
workable alternative, and that purpose is lost if
displaced vendors are left uncertain, uninformed, or
unable to access these spaces in practice. Let the State
clearly clarify the existing information available at
the defined vending zones which in any event have to
be acceptable to all concerned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 5535/2026 Page 4 of 6

12. This kind of assistance is not an act of generosity.
It reflects a basic respect for the right to earn a living
and to carry on a lawful occupation. When vendors are
removed without any real help in relocating, the
hardship caused is out of proportion to the regulatory
goal, and such an exercise risks becoming punitive
rather than orderly.
In essence, if vendors are displaced through
encroachment drives and lawful vending zones are
available, the State has a duty to actively support their
transition to these zones in accordance with the law.
Doing so upholds both the spirit of regulation and the
human reality of those whose lives depend on street
vending.
13. It is also to be recognized that forcible shifting or
removal of encroachments, while it may be entirely in
accordance with law, disrupts the customer base that
comes with the shop being located at a particular
area. The State is required to undertake efforts to let
residents know that the shops have been shifted, i.e.,
have awareness drives that would divert the
customers to the designated area. Let an affidavit be
filed with the relevant details, within two weeks of this
order.”
11. In terms of the aforesaid judgement, if street vendors are vending in a
non-vending zone, the MCD or the concerned authority has a duty to assist
them in moving from a non-vending to a vending zone, so as to provide the
street vendors with a workable alternative from where they can earn their
livelihood.
12. Further, the fact that the Petitioner has a provisional COV is not
disputed. Accordingly, after hearing ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and
perusing the provisional CoV of the Petitioner, as also the photograph, this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 5535/2026 Page 5 of 6

Court is inclined to pass the similar directions as have been passed in similar
matters.
13. Since the category of the Petitioner is ‘Others’ , the Petitioner is
permitted to run the vend at the vending site, strictly in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the CoV.
14. The Petitioner shall also maintain proper cleanliness and hygiene in and
around the cart which he is using.
15. The above stated directions shall be subject to any plan which the Town
Vending Committee–II may be coming up with in terms of Section 21 of the
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending)
Act, 2014 and no vested rights shall be claimed.
16. In addition, in the present case, since the Petitioner is vending along
ISBT boundary wall, which is a non-vending zone, the concerned Assistant
Commissioner may identify an appropriate alternative location for the
Petitioner, within the permitted vending areas of Kashmiri Gate ISBT area.
Until such a location is allotted, the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from
vending his wares at the vending site, subject to compliance with the aforesaid
conditions.
17. The present petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
APRIL 24, 2026/ prg/sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 5535/2026 Page 6 of 6