Facts
The Petitioners, claiming to be Tehbazari holders, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to prevent their dispossession from designated sites near Keshav Puram and Netaji Subhash Place (NSP)
Source reference: p. 2The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) contended that the areas currently occupied by the Petitioners are "non-squatting/non-vending zones"
Source reference: p. 2While the Petitioners hold Certificates of Vending (CoV) based on a 2014 survey, these certificates permit vending only in designated squatting areas
Source reference: p. 2Judicial inspection of photographs revealed that the Petitioners had erected pakka (permanent) structures, failed to maintain hygienic standards, and caused encroachments near commercial complexes
Source reference: p. 3On April 6, 2026, the Petitioners refused an offer to relocate to Lawrence Road Industrial Area, citing low footfall
Source reference: p. 4-5Issues
1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to continue vending in areas designated as non-vending zones under the terms of their Certificates of Vending.
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the Petitioners’ current operational methods, involving permanent structures and unhygienic conditions, violate the conditions of mobile vending licenses.
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
The Court applied the statutory framework governing street vending, specifically the terms and conditions attached to Certificates of Vending (CoV) issued under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act.
Source reference: p. 2, 5The court emphasized the distinction between "vending" and "non-vending" zones as demarcated by local authorities
Source reference: p. 2, 5It relied on the principle that a vending license for a "mobile vendor" does not authorize the construction of permanent (pakka) structures or the right to occupy a specific spot in a non-vending area
Source reference: p. 5Constitutional protections under Article 226 do not extend to activities that cause public nuisance, unhygienic conditions, or traffic congestion
Source reference: p. 5-6Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Petitioners’ rights are strictly governed by the conditions of their CoVs, which explicitly limit vending to squatting areas and mandate mobile vending
Source reference: p. 2, 5By constructing permanent structures and operating in Netaji Subhash Place—a declared non-vending zone—the Petitioners exceeded the scope of their licenses
Source reference: p. 5The Court dismissed the Petitioners' argument regarding "low footfall" in relocated areas, holding that commercial viability does permit the violation of zone regulations or the creation of unhygienic encroachments on public pathways
Source reference: p. 3, 5Since the MCD provided a list of valid alternate vending sites (e.g., Shakurpur and Lawrence Road), the Court found that the Petitioners' refusal to shift was unjustified
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The Court held that the Petitioners have no legal right to vend in non-vending zones like the Netaji Subhash Place complex
The Court ordered the Petitioners to remove their vends by April 27, 2026
Source reference: p. 6They are permitted to relocate to designated vending areas, specifically A-Block, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, or the Shakurpur area near Samrat Cinema, provided they operate strictly as mobile vendors and maintain hygiene
Source reference: p. 5-6The Court granted the MCD liberty to forcibly remove any remaining vendors after the deadline with the assistance of the SHO concerned
Source reference: p. 6The petition was disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Sh Sanjay Gupta & Ors.vsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in