A provisionally certified street vendor must be protected from disturbance, subject to alternate-site relocation and compliance conditions.

The Petitioner claimed to be a street vendor operating for several years at Major Sudesh Marg, adjacent to the DESU office, J-Block, Bus Stand No. 2, Rajouri Garden, Delhi.

He held a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV), URI No. 4062618, for the category “Food snack with gas cylinder/fire” in West Zone, Ward-S-5, New Delhi.

He alleged repeated harassment by officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Police despite holding the provisional CoV.

The MCD contended that the Petitioner was vending in a “No-vending zone” and could not be permitted to vend near the electricity office.

The Petitioner relied on a similar order in Satya Prakash v. MCD & Ors., W.P.(C) 9676/2026, concerning the same general area and ward.

The Court also noted that the pavement near the vending site was laid in a defective and hazardous manner, with dislodged or uprooted stones posing risks to pedestrians.

Whether the Petitioner, holding a provisional CoV for vending food/snacks with a gas cylinder or fire, should be permitted to continue vending despite the MCD’s assertion that the existing site was a “No-vending zone”.

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to protection of his livelihood through identification of an alternate vending site, subject to the conditions of the provisional CoV and applicable street-vending law.

Whether the MCD was required to undertake remedial measures to restore the unsafe pavement adjoining the vending area.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the Petitioner’s lawful livelihood as a street vendor, while balancing that interest against pedestrian safety, traffic regulation, public health, and the statutory street-vending framework.

It relied on the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, particularly the reference to the Town Vending Committee’s power to formulate a plan under Section 21, under which no vested right could be claimed.

The Court applied the terms of the Petitioner’s provisional CoV, including the requirements relating to hygiene, non-obstruction of pedestrians and traffic, prohibition on permanent or temporary structures, and compliance with the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019.

It also followed its earlier approach in Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., W.P.(C) 15082/2025, order dated 2 February 2026; Mohd. Badruddin v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 19391/2025, order dated 8 January 2026; and Rihana v. MCD & Ors., W.P.(C) 1609/2026, order dated 5 February 2026, concerning vendors holding CoVs in the food/snack with gas cylinder/fire category.

Although the MCD asserted that the Petitioner’s existing location was a “No-vending zone,” the Court gave weight to the fact that he possessed a provisional CoV specifically authorising vending in the food/snack with gas cylinder/fire category.

To reconcile the Petitioner’s livelihood interest with the MCD’s objection to the existing site, the Court directed the concerned Assistant Commissioner to identify an alternate site within ten days.

Continued vending was made conditional upon strict compliance with the CoV, including use of only a small gas cylinder, restriction to a defined space, absence of obstruction to pedestrians or vehicles, maintenance of cleanliness and hygiene, and provision of a dustbin.

The Court relaxed only the 30-minute limitation in Condition No. 11 of the CoV, while retaining all other conditions and expressly prohibiting sub-letting, creation of third-party rights, and construction of any permanent or temporary structure.

The protection was expressly made subject to any future plan framed by the Town Vending Committee under Section 21 of the 2014 Act.

Separately, the defective pavement was treated as a public-safety concern, warranting a direction to the MCD to lay it uniformly and remove loose stones.

The Petitioner was permitted to use only a small gas cylinder, was required to avoid obstruction and traffic congestion, maintain hygiene, and refrain from creating third-party rights or erecting any structure.

Condition No. 11 of the CoV was held inapplicable to the Petitioner, but all other CoV conditions remained operative.

Subject to compliance, the Petitioner’s vending activities were not to be disturbed.

The MCD was further directed to properly restore the pavement and file a status report with photographs by the next date; the matter was listed for compliance on 20 November 2026.