Facts
The petitioner, a two-wheeler mechanic, held a Provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV) permitting vending in South Zone, Ward S-62.
Source reference: p.1, paras. 2–3He claimed that he was vending near Chaudhary Dilip Singh Marg, Hauz Khas, but was not being allowed to do so peacefully.
Source reference: p.1, paras. 2–3The MCD submitted that, despite his CoV categorising him as an “Others” vendor and requiring mobile vending, he operated a stationary shop using a cupboard and almirah; it also alleged poor cleanliness and traffic obstruction.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 4–5The petitioner maintained that the location was a vending zone and that he should not be disturbed.
Source reference: p.2, para. 6After considering photographs of the site, the Court disposed of the petition with directions concerning compliance with the CoV and identification of a suitable vending space.
Source reference: pp. 2–6, paras. 7–13Issues
1. Whether the petitioner could continue vending from his existing location in the manner shown, despite the CoV’s requirements and the alleged obstruction and cleanliness concerns
Source reference: pp. 1–4, paras. 4–92. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to vend and provide mechanic services from an identified space in the same vicinity, subject to the CoV and any plan under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras. 9–12Law Applied
The Court referred to the terms and conditions of the petitioner’s Provisional CoV, including the requirement that he operate as a mobile vendor, and directed compliance with those conditions.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, para. 4; p. 4, para. 9(i)It also made its directions subject to any plan formulated by Town Vending Committee-II under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; the petitioner could claim no vested right contrary to such a plan.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 12No judicial precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court found from the photographs that the petitioner’s operation was a stationary shop rather than a mobile mechanic service, contrary to his CoV, and that cleanliness was not maintained.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, para. 8It nevertheless recognised that mechanic services could benefit commuters in the area.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 9–11Balancing that consideration against the need to prevent congestion and maintain pedestrian movement, the Court directed the MCD to identify a suitable, visible space in the same vicinity, while requiring the petitioner to confine his activities to that space, maintain cleanliness, and comply with the CoV.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 9–11Holding
The petition was disposed of with directions that the petitioner comply with his CoV, maintain cleanliness and provide a dustbin, and appear before the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, on 8 October 2026 at 2:00 p.m. for identification of a vending space near the existing location.
He must not encroach on pedestrian areas, create a third-party interest or sublet the CoV, or erect any permanent or temporary construction.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9(iv)–(vi)The directions are subject to any plan under Section 21 of the 2014 Act, and no vested rights may be claimed.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 11–13Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 20141
Original Court PDF
Prem ShankarvsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
