Delhi HC directs MCD to provide vending site and permit stationary tea stall to 70% disabled vendor pending Certificate of Vending decision

The Petitioner, who suffered 70% locomotor disability in an accident in 2023, claimed to have been vending near Dalit Ekta Camp, Vasant Kunj, and sought a Certificate of Vending (“CoV”) and permission to vend at the site opposite C-8, Gate No. 15, near the Indian Oil petrol pump.

The MCD stated that the Petitioner’s survey had been conducted and approved on 2 December 2021, but the CoV was not issued because of administrative and technical difficulties involving the agencies engaged for the survey.

The MCD further stated that a fresh survey would cover the Petitioner’s case, subject to applicable conditions and the competent authority’s decision, but that a site inspection showed that the Petitioner was not vending at the claimed location.

By the time of hearing, elections to the Town Vending Committee-II (“TVC-II”) had been completed and the Committee was likely to be constituted shortly.

Whether the Petitioner, whose vending survey had been approved in 2021 but who had not been issued a CoV, should be permitted to vend pending a decision by TVC-II.

Whether the MCD should identify an alternative vending site for the Petitioner in the Vasant Kunj area.

Whether, considering the Petitioner’s disability and prior operation of a tea stall, he could be permitted to operate a stationary tea stall subject to regulatory conditions.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue appropriate directions concerning the Petitioner’s request for a CoV and permission to vend.

It applied the framework of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including the role of the Town Vending Committee and the vending plan contemplated under Section 21.

The Court directed that any interim permission would remain subject to TVC-II’s decision, including its policy concerning persons with disabilities and verification of the Petitioner’s credentials, and would not create vested rights.

The interim vending permission was also made subject to conditions relating to use of a small or medium gas cylinder, non-obstruction, cleanliness, maintenance of a dustbin, and prohibition on permanent or temporary construction.

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s 2021 survey had been approved, although the CoV had not been issued due to administrative and technical failures attributable to the survey process.

Since TVC-II had not yet taken a decision and was expected to be constituted shortly, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the Petitioner’s ability to earn a livelihood without granting him a final or vested right to a particular site.

Accordingly, instead of permitting vending at the disputed location, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to identify a suitable site in the Vasant Kunj area.

Given the Petitioner’s disability and his previous operation of a tea stall, the Court also permitted a stationary tea stall, subject to safeguards protecting pedestrian movement, hygiene, and public safety.

The interim arrangement was expressly subordinated to TVC-II’s statutory and policy decisions.

The Petitioner was permitted to vend at the identified site in the Vasant Kunj area until TVC-II decides his CoV application and was allowed to operate a stationary tea stall, subject to the specified conditions concerning the gas cylinder, space, pedestrian access, cleanliness, dustbin, and prohibition on construction.

These directions remain subject to TVC-II’s decision regarding the Petitioner’s credentials and the policy applicable to disabled persons, any vending plan under Section 21 of the 2014 Act, and create no vested rights.

The petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.