Certified street vendors using fire are protected from removal subject to strict space, hygiene, and non-obstruction conditions.

The Petitioner, a street vendor selling food items near Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi, sought directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to vend peacefully at his designated spot

The Petitioner holds a valid Certificate of Vending (CoV) under the category 'Food/Snack with Gas Cylinder/Fire'

He alleged constant harassment and disturbance by officials from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Police

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to protection against displacement and harassment by authorities while operating under a valid Certificate of Vending

2. What conditions must be imposed to balance the Petitioner’s right to vend with public safety and space management

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It relied on the statutory framework of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically Section 21 regarding the formulation of a vending plan by the Town Vending Committee (TVC)

The Court further applied principles established in judicial precedents, including Mohd Badruddin v. MCD, Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police, and Rihana v. MCD, to provide standardized interim protection to street vendors

The Court noted that the Petitioner is a legitimate certificate holder but recognized the need to regulate vending activities involving fire and public space

Following the trajectory of similar previous matters, the Court determined that the Petitioner should be allowed to continue his livelihood subject to strict operational guidelines

The reasoning focused on balancing the vendor's right to livelihood against the public's right to unobstructed movement and hygiene

By waiving Condition No. 11 of the CoV (which presumably restricted gas usage) while simultaneously limiting the size of gas cylinders and prohibiting encroachment, the Court addressed both safety concerns and the Petitioner's operational needs

The Court emphasized that such protections are provisional and do not create permanent vested rights, as they remain subject to future statutory plans formulated by the TVC-II under Section 21 of the 2014 Act

The Court held that MCD remains at liberty to take action in case of violations

These directions are subject to the final vending plan to be framed by the Town Vending Committee-II