Authorities must actively assist street vendors' relocation from non-vending zones to designated vending areas to preserve livelihoods.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a street vendor holding a provisional Certificate of Vending can be summarily removed from a non-vending zone without being provided an alternative location.

The court held

The Court held that the Petitioner is permitted to vend at the current site subject to cleanliness and compliance with CoV terms

It also directed

It directed the Assistant Commissioner to identify an appropriate alternative location within the permitted vending areas of Kashmere Gate

Crucially, the Court ordered that the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from the current vending site until such an alternative location is officially allotted

The petition was disposed of with the caveat that these directions are subject to future plans formulated by the Town Vending Committee-II

01Facts

The Petitioner, a street vendor selling water and cold drinks near the ISBT Kashmere Gate boundary wall, held a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV)

p. 2, 3

He alleged that officials from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Police frequently removed him forcibly, preventing peaceful vending

p. 3

The MCD contended that the site is a non-vending zone where vending causes traffic congestion and poses safety risks to passengers

p. 3, 4

The Petitioner sought a directive to allow him to continue his livelihood at the site

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether a street vendor holding a provisional Certificate of Vending can be summarily removed from a non-vending zone without being provided an alternative location.

p. 5, 6

ii.2. Whether the state has an obligation to assist in the relocation of vendors during encroachment drives to protect their right to livelihood.

p. 4, 5

03Law Applied

Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, regarding the formulation of relocation plans by the Town Vending Committee

p. 6

Supreme Court precedent in Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. (2026), which established that the state has a duty to actively support the transition of displaced vendors to designated zones to respect their right to earn a living under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

p. 4, 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 Section 21

04Reasoning

Relying on Malkit Singh, the Court reasoned that simply identifying vending zones is insufficient; authorities must provide "workable alternatives" to ensure minimum disruption to a vendor's life

p. 4, 5

Since the Petitioner possessed a valid provisional CoV, the Court determined that while he cannot claim a vested right to a specific spot in a non-vending zone, he cannot be rendered destitute

p. 5, 6

The Court analyzed that the MCD must fulfill its "duty to assist" by identifying an alternative site within the permitted Kashmere Gate area before removing him from his current location

p. 6

05Holding

The Court held that the Petitioner is permitted to vend at the current site subject to cleanliness and compliance with CoV terms

p. 6

It directed the Assistant Commissioner to identify an appropriate alternative location within the permitted vending areas of Kashmere Gate

p. 6

Crucially, the Court ordered that the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from the current vending site until such an alternative location is officially allotted

p. 6

The petition was disposed of with the caveat that these directions are subject to future plans formulated by the Town Vending Committee-II

p. 6

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF