Delhi High Court Administrative and Public Law Constitutional Law

Delhi HC Denies Footpath Vendor’s Plea To Recover Cart After Dhaba-Style Setup; He Can Seek Its Release From MCD After Paying Fine

Amarjeet Panditv.Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 28, 2026Published 31 October 2026 at 12:52 pm IST2 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for release of his seized cart and vending goods and restoration of his vending site.

The court held

The Court declined to order release of the cart and goods or restoration of the site. It permitted the petitioner to approach the MCD for release of the cart and goods upon payment of the requisite fine, and directed that he vend strictly in accordance with his CoV, failing which the MCD could take further action.

It also directed

The petition and pending applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner held a Certificate of Vending (CoV) issued by the MCD in the “Others” category for a site in Ward 84-N, City SP Zone. He sought, under Article 226, the return of his vending cart and goods, seized by MCD officials on 18 August 2026, and restoration of his vending site near Old Delhi Railway Station.

pp. 1–2

The MCD produced photographs showing that the petitioner had placed chairs and tables on the footpath. The CoV’s specific terms were not on record; the Court considered the standard conditions applicable to vending certificates.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for release of his seized cart and vending goods and restoration of his vending site.

pp. 1–2, 4–5

ii.2. Whether the MCD’s action was justified where the petitioner’s use of the footpath allegedly exceeded the conditions of his CoV.

pp. 2, 4–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the basis for the Court’s consideration of the petitioner’s request for relief.

p. 1

The Court applied the terms and conditions of the CoV, including the requirements that vendors not obstruct pedestrian movement or block footpaths, not create structures at the vending site, and comply with the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019; the conditions also provide that a CoV may be suspended or cancelled for violations.

pp. 3–5

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

04Reasoning

The Court treated the petitioner’s CoV, issued in the “Others” category, as requiring him to operate as a mobile vendor. It found that placing chairs and tables enlarged his vending area onto the footpath and effectively turned the site into a dhaba, contrary to the CoV conditions requiring vendors to preserve pedestrian access and not block footpaths.

pp. 4–5

On that basis, the Court held that the MCD had rightly acted and that the petitioner could not obtain the reliefs sought.

p. 5