Authorities must provide street vendors displaced from no-vending zones a workable alternative vending location.

The petitioner claimed to be a street vendor operating for several years from a footpath on Netaji Subhash Marg, near Link Road, City-SP Zone, Ward 84-N, New Delhi.

He possessed a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV), URI No. 6576651, authorising vending under the category “Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire” in City-SP Zone, Ward 84-N.

The petitioner alleged that officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Police were harassing him and preventing him from vending peacefully.

The MCD informed the Court that Netaji Subhash Marg was a “No-vending zone”.

Relying on Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh, the petitioner sought protection of his livelihood and directions permitting him to vend from the site or providing a workable alternative vending location.

Whether the petitioner, holding a provisional CoV, could be permitted to continue vending from the disputed site despite the site being situated in a “No-vending zone”.

Whether the MCD was required to assist the petitioner by identifying an appropriate alternative vending location within the permitted vending areas of the same zone.

What safeguards and conditions should govern the petitioner’s vending activity so as to protect public hygiene, pedestrian movement and traffic regulation.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the petitioner’s livelihood while regulating his vending activity.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh, SLP (C) No. 21349/2025, decided on 9 April 2026, which held that when vendors are displaced from existing locations, authorities must act with fairness and responsibility and, where designated vending zones exist, provide a lawful and workable alternative and assist in the transition.

The Court also applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, particularly the planning framework under Section 21, under which the directions remained subject to any plan formulated by the Town Vending Committee.

The petitioner was required to comply with the terms of his provisional CoV, including requirements relating to hygiene, non-obstruction, public health, prohibition on permanent or temporary structures, non-transferability and compliance with the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2019.

The Court accepted that the petitioner held a provisional CoV and was engaged in food vending, but also noted that the existing site was a “No-vending zone”.

Applying Malkit Singh, the Court held that displacement from such a location could not be undertaken without providing a practical alternative that enabled the vendor to continue earning a livelihood.

At the same time, the petitioner’s right to vend was subject to regulatory conditions protecting pedestrian and vehicular movement, cleanliness, hygiene and public safety.

Accordingly, the Court permitted the petitioner to operate with only a small gas cylinder, within a restricted space, without causing obstruction or traffic congestion, and with a dustbin maintained near the vending site.

Condition No. 11 of the CoV, concerning the time limit applicable to mobile vendors, was expressly made inapplicable, while all other CoV conditions remained binding.

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

The petitioner was permitted to use only a small gas cylinder, vend from a limited space without obstructing pedestrians or traffic, maintain hygiene and provide a dustbin, and refrain from creating any third-party interest or erecting any permanent or temporary structure.

Condition No. 11 of the CoV was excluded, but all other conditions remained applicable.

The Assistant Commissioner, MCD was directed to identify an alternative vending location for the petitioner within the permitted vending areas of the same zone within ten days.

These directions were made subject to any future plan of the Town Vending Committee under Section 21 of the 2014 Act, and no vested right was created in favour of the petitioner.