Authorities must identify workable alternative vending sites for vendors operating in no-vending zones.

The petitioner, Rahul Sharma, claimed to be a street vendor operating for several years from a footpath on Netaji Subhash Marg, near Metro Station Gate No. 4, Lal Qila, City-SP Zone, Ward 84-N, New Delhi.

He held a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV), URI No. 9301107, under the category “Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire”.

He alleged that officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Police were preventing him from vending peacefully at the site.

The MCD contended that Netaji Subhash Marg was a “no-vending zone”.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh, which required authorities to assist displaced vendors in transitioning to lawful and workable vending zones.

Whether the petitioner, despite vending at a declared “no-vending zone,” was entitled to protection against arbitrary interference with his livelihood under his provisional CoV, subject to applicable regulatory conditions?

Whether the MCD was required to identify an appropriate alternative vending location for the petitioner within the permitted vending areas of the same zone?

What conditions and safeguards should govern the petitioner’s continued vending pending formulation or implementation of the applicable vending plan?

The Court applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including the statutory framework concerning vending zones and the Town Vending Committee’s plan under Section 21.

It enforced the conditions contained in the petitioner’s provisional CoV, including requirements relating to hygiene, non-obstruction of pedestrians and vehicular traffic, prohibition of illegal activities, non-transferability, and prohibition against permanent or temporary construction.

Relying on Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh, SLP (Civil) No. 21349/2025, decided on 9 April 2026, the Court held that where vendors are removed from no-vending zones, authorities must provide meaningful assistance in relocating them to designated vending zones; merely identifying such zones is insufficient, as the State must provide a lawful and workable alternative consistent with the right to earn a livelihood.

The Court also relied on similar orders in Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Mohd Badruddin v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and Rihana v. MCD.

The Court accepted that the petitioner possessed a provisional CoV and that his vending activity fell within a regulated category, but also recognised the MCD’s position that the existing site was a no-vending zone.

Applying the principle in Malkit Singh, the Court held that the no-vending status of the site could not, by itself, justify displacement without facilitating access to a practical alternative vending location.

To balance the petitioner’s livelihood interests with public safety, hygiene, pedestrian movement, and traffic regulation, the Court permitted him to continue vending subject to strict conditions: use of only a small gas cylinder, confinement to a specified space, no obstruction or traffic congestion, maintenance of cleanliness, and provision of a dustbin.

The Court exempted the petitioner from the 30-minute restriction in Condition No. 11 of the CoV, while retaining all other conditions.

It further clarified that the arrangement would remain subject to any plan formulated by the Town Vending Committee under Section 21 and would not create vested rights.

The petitioner was permitted to use only a small gas cylinder, occupy a restricted space without obstructing pedestrians or traffic, and maintain cleanliness and hygiene around the vending site.

Condition No. 11 of the CoV was not to apply to him, but all other conditions remained binding; sub-letting, transfer, creation of third-party interests, and construction of any permanent or temporary structure were prohibited.

Since the existing site was a no-vending zone, the concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD, was directed to identify an appropriate alternative location for the petitioner within the permitted vending areas of the same zone within ten days.

The directions were expressly made subject to the Town Vending Committee’s future plan, and no vested right was created.