01Facts
The petitioners claimed provisional certificates of vending (CoVs) to vend in South Zone, Ward S-63.
pp. 1–2, 4The Court noted that Petitioner No. 7, Chander Bhan, had not filed a provisional CoV, while Petitioner No. 8, Hasruddin, held a CoV for “Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire”.
pp. 1–2, 4Images showed that some petitioners were using gas cylinders and that vendors were not maintaining proper hygiene.
p. 2The MCD also submitted photographs showing cylinder use.
p. 2The petition sought permission to vend.
02Issues
i.Whether the petitioners who had filed provisional CoVs could be permitted to vend, and on what conditions
pp. 2–3ii.Whether Petitioner No. 8, whose CoV specifically authorised vending food or snacks with a gas cylinder/fire, could vend using a gas cylinder and, if so, subject to what safeguards
p. 4iii.Whether the relief granted would be subject to a vending plan subsequently framed by the Town Vending Committee-II under Section 21 of the 2014 Act
p. 503Law Applied
The Court applied the terms and conditions of the petitioners’ CoVs, including requirements to follow the vending period and zone determined by the Town Vending Committee (TVC) or local body; maintain hygiene and public health; avoid obstructing pedestrians or vehicles; refrain from unauthorised activity and constructing permanent or temporary structures; and comply with the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019.
pp. 2–4It also referred to Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, under which the Town Vending Committee-II may frame a plan; the relief granted would be subject to such a plan, and no vested rights could be claimed.
p. 5No judicial precedent was cited.
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 treated the CoV conditions as governing the petitioners’ entitlement to vend.
pp. 2–4Because the record showed cylinder use and inadequate hygiene, permission was made conditional on compliance with those conditions, with the MCD authorised to act in accordance with law if violations were found.
pp. 2–4Petitioner No. 8’s CoV expressly covered food/snack vending with gas cylinder/fire, so the Court permitted use of only a small cylinder for heating, subject to restrictions on space, obstruction, cleanliness, and third-party interests; it also exempted him from the CoV’s 30-minute limit.
p. 4The Court made all directions subject to any plan framed by the TVC-II under Section 21.
p. 505Holding
The petition was disposed of.
Petitioners with provisional CoVs filed on record were permitted to vend subject to the CoV conditions; the MCD could remove them in accordance with law upon finding a violation.
pp. 2–4No relief was granted to Petitioner No. 7 because he had not filed a provisional CoV.
p. 2Petitioner No. 8 was permitted to vend under the additional safeguards specified by the Court, including use of a small gas cylinder and exemption from the 30-minute condition.
p. 4All relief remained subject to a TVC-II plan under Section 21, with no vested rights created.
p. 5Original Court PDF
Bachu Singh And Ors.vsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
