A street vendor holding a provisional Certificate of Vending shall be permitted to vend subject to safety and non-obstruction conditions.

The Petitioner claimed to be a street vendor operating for several years at the footpath/open space on MB Road near Mangal Bazar Road, Sangam Vihar, Central Zone, Ward S-85, New Delhi (“vending site”).

He possessed a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV), URI No. 6995046, issued under the category “Food snack with gas cylinder/fire”.

The Petitioner alleged that officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Police were preventing him from vending peacefully at the vending site and were regularly harassing him despite the provisional CoV.

He accordingly invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions permitting him to vend from the site.

Whether the Petitioner, holding a provisional CoV for vending food/snacks with a gas cylinder or fire, should be permitted to operate his vend from the specified vending site, subject to appropriate regulatory conditions.

Whether the Petitioner’s provisional CoV should be protected from enforcement of Condition No. 11, subject to compliance with the remaining conditions and applicable statutory or regulatory plans.

What safeguards should govern the Petitioner’s vending so as to protect pedestrian movement, vehicular traffic, public hygiene, and the non-transferable nature of the provisional CoV.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the Petitioner’s livelihood while ensuring compliance with the regulatory framework governing street vending.

It applied the terms and conditions of the provisional Certificate of Vending, including the restriction contained in Condition No. 11, but directed that Condition No. 11 would not apply to the Petitioner subject to specified safeguards.

The Court also recognised the relevance of Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, under which the Town Vending Committee may formulate a plan; the directions were therefore made subject to any such plan, with no vested rights accruing to the Petitioner.

The Court followed the approach adopted 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 similarly situated food/snack vendors using gas cylinders or fire.

The Court treated the provisional CoV as sufficient basis to permit the Petitioner to continue vending, particularly since his category expressly covered “Food snack with gas cylinder/fire”.

Balancing livelihood protection with public safety and civic regulation, it allowed vending only on conditions requiring use of a small gas cylinder, confinement to a specific space without obstruction to pedestrians or traffic, maintenance of cleanliness and hygiene, and provision of a dustbin.

The Court further prohibited creation of any third-party interest, sub-letting, transfer of possession, and erection of permanent or temporary constructions.

These directions were made subject to the Petitioner’s continued compliance with the CoV and any future plan prepared by the Town Vending Committee under Section 21 of the 2014 Act.

He must use only a small gas cylinder, avoid obstruction or traffic congestion, maintain hygiene and keep a dustbin near the vend, and comply with all CoV conditions except Condition No. 11, which was held inapplicable to him.

He was barred from creating third-party rights, sub-letting or handing over possession, and erecting any permanent or temporary construction.

The relief remained subject to any plan framed by the Town Vending Committee-II under Section 21 of the 2014 Act, and the Petitioner was held entitled to claim no vested rights.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.