A vendor designated as mobile in their Certificate of Vending cannot claim stationary vendor status.

The Petitioner, a fruit and vegetable vendor in East of Kailash Market, holds a Certificate of Vending (CoV) issued under the category of "fresh fruits/vegetables/perishables" for Ward S-89.

Condition 11 of the CoV stipulates that mobile vendors shall not engage in selling activities at any one spot for more than 30 minutes.

This is the Petitioner’s second writ petition seeking a declaration that she is a "stationary vendor" rather than a "mobile vendor".

In previous rounds of litigation (W.P.(C) 1596/2023 and CM APPL. 27819/2025), the Court had already clarified that the Petitioner is a mobile vendor and must adhere to the CoV conditions.

The Petitioner filed the present petition seeking similar relief and the removal of barricades, while "cleverly concealing" the adverse order dated May 23, 2025, which had already rejected her claim to stationary status.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to be declared a "stationary vendor" despite the explicit "mobile vendor" classification in her Certificate of Vending.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s continued occupation of a specific pavement spot constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of her provisional Certificate of Vending.

Specifically, Condition 11 governs the conduct of mobile vendors, prohibiting them from staying at one vending spot for more than 30 minutes.

The Court also relied on the principle of uberrima fides (utmost good faith) in writ jurisdiction, holding that concealment of previous material court orders warrants the imposition of costs.

The Court examined photographic evidence which revealed that the Petitioner had established a permanent setup, occupying substantial pavement space and functioning as a stationary vendor in contradiction to her CoV.

The Court noted that in the Sriniwaspuri Ward, other vendors have specific landmarks assigned to their sites, whereas the Petitioner’s recognition is limited to a "mobile vendor" status across the whole ward.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's counsel's argument that her status remained unadjudicated, observing that three prior judicial orders had already reiterated her mobile status.

The Court found that the Petitioner had suppressed the order dated May 23, 2025, to obtain an interim order for the removal of barricades, which the Court deemed a "clever concealment" of material facts.

The Court directed the MCD and Police to ensure the Petitioner does not operate as a stationary vendor.

Due to the concealment of the previous order, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the Petitioner, payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

The MCD was further authorized to remove any encroachments by other shopkeepers in the market corridors.