Facts
The Petitioner, a street vendor selling water and cold drinks near the ISBT Kashmere Gate boundary wall, held a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV)
Source reference: p. 2, 3He alleged that officials from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Police frequently removed him forcibly, preventing peaceful vending
Source reference: p. 3The MCD contended that the site is a non-vending zone where vending causes traffic congestion and poses safety risks to passengers
Source reference: p. 3, 4The Petitioner sought a directive to allow him to continue his livelihood at the site
Source reference: p. 1Issues
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.
Source reference: p. 5, 62. Whether the state has an obligation to assist in the relocation of vendors during encroachment drives to protect their right to livelihood.
Source reference: p. 4, 5Law 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
Source reference: p. 6Supreme 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
Source reference: p. 4, 5Reasoning
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
Source reference: p. 4, 5Since 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
Source reference: p. 5, 6The 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
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Court held that the Petitioner is permitted to vend at the current site subject to cleanliness and compliance with CoV terms
It directed the Assistant Commissioner to identify an appropriate alternative location within the permitted vending areas of Kashmere Gate
Source reference: p. 6Crucially, the Court ordered that the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from the current vending site until such an alternative location is officially allotted
Source reference: p. 6The petition was disposed of with the caveat that these directions are subject to future plans formulated by the Town Vending Committee-II
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Munsi Prasad MehtavsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in