A Certificate of Vending holder cannot be disturbed while fully complying with vending conditions.

The Petitioner, Mohammad Naseem, held Certificate of Vending No. 180 issued by the Delhi Cantonment Board (“DCB”) for vending from the designated open space near the Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Palam Dwarka Road, Palam Fatak, Delhi Cantonment. He was stated to be selling tender coconut water and other eatable items.

The Petitioner alleged that he was being prevented from peacefully carrying on his vending activity and sought directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to restrain the Respondents from harassing or disturbing him.

The DCB submitted that the Petitioner was not being disturbed but was required to comply fully with the terms and conditions of his Certificate of Vending.

The Certificate prescribed conditions concerning the location of vending, cleanliness, public hygiene, non-obstruction, prohibition on permanent or temporary structures, and compliance with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the Cantonment Act, 2006.

1. Whether a street vendor holding a valid Certificate of Vending could be prevented from carrying on vending activities at the designated site, subject to compliance with the applicable conditions.

2. Whether additional conditions concerning restriction to a particular vending space, pedestrian movement, cleanliness, hygiene, dustbins, and prohibition on temporary or permanent construction ought to be imposed.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to protect the lawful exercise of vending rights by a holder of a valid Certificate of Vending.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing street vending, including the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the Cantonment Act, 2006, as incorporated in the conditions of the Certificate of Vending.

The governing principle was that a Certificate of Vending protects the vendor from unwarranted disturbance, but the protection is conditional upon strict compliance with the certificate’s terms, including maintaining cleanliness and hygiene, not blocking roads or footpaths, not encroaching upon prohibited areas, not erecting structures, and not engaging in unlawful activities.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court examined the Certificate of Vending and found that it expressly regulated the manner, location, and conditions of the Petitioner’s vending activity.

Since the Petitioner was a valid CoV holder, he could not be disturbed merely from carrying on vending activities; however, that protection was subject to his adherence to the certificate conditions.

Given the nature and location of the vending activity, the Court further required the Petitioner to remain confined to the particular space in which he operated, avoid obstruction or encroachment upon pedestrian areas, maintain surrounding cleanliness and hygiene, keep a dustbin near the vend, and refrain from erecting any temporary or permanent construction.

The Court therefore balanced the Petitioner’s right to vend with the requirements of public access, hygiene, safety, and regulation.

The petition was disposed of with directions that the Petitioner remain within the designated vending space, not obstruct pedestrian movement, maintain cleanliness and hygiene, keep a dustbin near the vend, and not erect any temporary or permanent structure.

All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.