Delhi HC Bars East Of Kailash Street Vendor From Current Spot Over Encroachment, Directs MCD To Identify Alternative If He Seeks One

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to continue vending at his designated site despite the alleged encroachment, lack of cleanliness and resulting traffic congestion

The court held

The petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner must not vend at the existing site and that the SHO, Police Station Amar Colony, remove him from it

It also directed

If the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, identifies an alternate site, the petitioner may vend there subject to the Court’s conditions and all other CoV conditions, except Condition No. 11

The order is subject to the decision of Town Vending Committee–II and any plan it adopts under Section 21; no vested rights may be claimed

01Facts

Ravi Kumar, a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV) holder in the category “Food/Snack with Gas Cylinder/Fire,” sought relief under Article 226 to vend at his designated spot on Raja Dhirsain Marg, near Mount Kailash Apartment, East of Kailash

p. 2

MCD opposed the request, relying on photographs and complaints alleging that the petitioner had encroached on the area, failed to maintain cleanliness and hygiene, and caused traffic congestion

p. 3

The Court found that the petitioner had erected a temporary structure and was violating the terms of his provisional CoV

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to continue vending at his designated site despite the alleged encroachment, lack of cleanliness and resulting traffic congestion

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to vend at an alternate site, and subject to what conditions

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

The Court considered the petitioner’s provisional CoV and its terms and conditions, finding that vending in violation of those conditions could not be permitted

pp. 4–5

It also referred to Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, making its directions subject to any plan adopted by the Town Vending Committee–II under that provision

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 Section 21

04Reasoning

The Court concluded from the photographs and material presented by MCD that the petitioner’s temporary structure, failure to maintain cleanliness and hygiene, and obstruction contributing to traffic congestion breached the terms of his provisional CoV; accordingly, vending at the existing site could not be allowed

pp. 3–5

As the petitioner held a provisional CoV, the Court permitted him to approach the concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD, for identification of an alternate site. Any vending at that site would be subject to specified safeguards, including use of a small gas cylinder, restriction to a defined space, maintenance of cleanliness and a dustbin, no construction, and no transfer or subletting of the CoV

pp. 5–6

05Holding

The petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner must not vend at the existing site and that the SHO, Police Station Amar Colony, remove him from it

p. 6

If the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, identifies an alternate site, the petitioner may vend there subject to the Court’s conditions and all other CoV conditions, except Condition No. 11

pp. 5–6

The order is subject to the decision of Town Vending Committee–II and any plan it adopts under Section 21; no vested rights may be claimed

p. 6

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF