Disabled street vendors excluded from non-vending zones must be considered for alternative nearby vending sites.

The Petitioner, a street vendor with 47% locomotor disability, claimed the right to vend food items from a designated site on the footpath at Shyamnath Marg, near the Police Booth, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

Although a survey of the area was conducted by the Town Vending Committee in 2021, the Petitioner alleged that he was omitted from it. He subsequently registered himself on an MCD portal opened for vendors left out of the survey.

The Petitioner stated that he continued vending at the site until he was removed on 4 August 2026 in connection with forthcoming Independence Day events.

He thereafter submitted a representation dated 17 September 2026 to the MCD alleging continuous harassment by MCD and Delhi Police officials, but the representation remained undecided.

The MCD contended that the location was a “No squatting” and “No vending” zone.

The petition was filed under Article 226 seeking permission to vend from the designated site.

Whether the Petitioner could be permitted to vend from the claimed site despite the MCD’s position that it was a “No squatting” and “No vending” zone.

Whether, having regard to the Petitioner’s locomotor disability and livelihood concerns, the MCD was required to consider his representation and identify an alternative vending site in the vicinity.

Whether the Town Vending Committee-II was required to determine the Petitioner’s registration on the MCD portal.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue appropriate directions concerning the Petitioner’s grievance and the non-consideration of his representation.

It accepted the administrative determination that a road classified as a “No squatting” and “No vending” zone could not ordinarily be used for vending.

At the same time, the Court applied an empathetic and livelihood-sensitive approach, taking into account the Petitioner’s 47% locomotor disability, and directed the municipal authority to consider an alternative vending location so that his livelihood was not unnecessarily hampered.

The Court also directed the competent Town Vending Committee to decide the Petitioner’s registration in accordance with the applicable vending framework, while requiring compliance with the terms and conditions ordinarily applicable to provisional Certificates of Vending.

The Court found that the MCD’s contention that the disputed road was a non-vending zone appeared to be correct; consequently, it did not direct that the Petitioner be allowed to vend at the original site.

However, the photographs showed that the Petitioner was the only vendor on the road, and his locomotor disability constituted a relevant humanitarian circumstance.

Balancing the regulatory restriction with the Petitioner’s livelihood concerns, the Court directed him to appear before the concerned Assistant Commissioner, required the officer to decide his pending representation after hearing him, and mandated identification of another vending site in the vicinity within one week thereafter.

The Court further left the question of the Petitioner’s formal registration to the Town Vending Committee-II after its constitution.

The Court directed the Petitioner to appear before the concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD, on 6 October 2026 at 11:30 a.m.; directed the Assistant Commissioner to decide the representation dated 17 September 2026 after hearing him; and required identification of an alternative nearby vending site within one week, from which the Petitioner would thereafter be permitted to vend subject to the conditions applicable to provisional Certificate of Vending holders.

The Town Vending Committee-II was directed to decide the Petitioner’s registration on the MCD portal within three months of its constitution.

All rights and remedies of the Petitioner were kept open.