Connaught Place Vendor’s 8–10 Km-Away Interim Site Offer Is Not Contrary to Street Vending Scheme: Delhi HC

The petitioner, whose name appeared at serial no. 597 on a list of 628 existing vendors, claimed to have vended near Regal Building, opposite Khadi Gram Udyog, Connaught Place—a declared no-vending zone. She sought an alternative site near Rivoli Cinema or Janpath Market, contending that an allotment at Laxmi Bai Nagar was too far away and inconsistent with the GNCTD Street Vendors Scheme, 2019.

In earlier proceedings, the Court directed NDMC to consider her case and communicate an alternative site; NDMC subsequently offered Laxmi Bai Nagar on a temporary basis, pending a final decision by the Town Vending Committee (TVC).

The petitioner challenged that arrangement in the present petition.

The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the Scheme, 2019 govern vendor surveys, relocation, and the allocation of alternative vending sites. Under Clauses 6.3.3 and 6.3.4 of the Scheme, an affected vendor may, subject to availability, be adjusted in the same or a nearby vending zone; the TVC is to provide at least three alternative sites in the same or nearest available vending zone, with the prescribed process applying where sites are unavailable or sought by multiple vendors.

The Court also relied on the principle that “nearby” or “nearest available” must be assessed in light of available vending space and the number of vendors who can be accommodated.

Gainda Ram v. MCD, (2010) 10 SCC 715, and the earlier proceedings in the petitioner’s case formed part of the procedural background concerning vendor participation, consideration by the authorities, and the interim alternative-site arrangement.

The Court noted that NDMC’s Laxmi Bai Nagar offer was temporary, pending completion of the survey of tehbazari holders and consideration of the petitioner’s case by the TVC.

It took judicial notice that surveys in the NDMC area were substantially complete, with the remaining process concerning certain tehbazari holders, and observed that the petitioner’s candidature fell within that category.

Because vending-space availability and the number of vendors to be accommodated govern what constitutes a nearby or nearest available zone, the distance of Laxmi Bai Nagar alone did not establish that the interim arrangement violated the Scheme.

The final allocation remained for the constituted TVC to determine under the Scheme and applicable law.

The petition was disposed of on those terms.