Inclusion in an unauthorized-squatters list confers no right to vend in no-vending zones.

The petitioners instituted contempt proceedings alleging wilful disobedience of common orders dated 30 May 2016 and 1 August 2016, which required compliance with the Division Bench judgment dated 18 May 2016 in LPA No. 136/2016 concerning the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the applicable Delhi Street Vendors Scheme.

The petitioners claimed that they were “pre-existing right holders” because their names appeared at serial nos. 296 and 293 in a list of 628 unauthorised squatters prepared by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) pursuant to a Supreme Court order dated 1 May 2012.

They conceded, however, that they possessed neither tehbazari licences nor Certificates of Vending.

The NDMC submitted that the list merely identified unauthorised squatters and did not confer any right to obtain a tehbazari licence.

The petitioners’ goods were removed on 5 November 2022 on the ground that they were vending in a “No Vending Zone”, after notice dated 6 November 2022.

The Court also noted that Connaught Place and Connaught Circus were classified as “No Vending/No Hawking Zones”, subject to an exception for 80 recognised vendors, in whose list the petitioners did not figure.

Whether the petitioners possessed pre-existing vending or tehbazari rights protected by the Division Bench judgment dated 18 May 2016, merely because their names appeared in the NDMC’s list of 628 unauthorised squatters?

Whether the removal of the petitioners’ goods from Connaught Place/Connaught Circus constituted disobedience of the contempt orders dated 30 May 2016 and 1 August 2016?

Whether the petitioners could lawfully carry on street vending in an area declared to be a “No Vending/No Hawking Zone” in the absence of a licence or Certificate of Vending?

The Court applied Section 12 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, under which a street vendor may conduct vending only in accordance with the terms of the Certificate of Vending, and no vending is permitted in an area earmarked as a “no-vending zone”.

It relied on the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 136/2016, which protected pre-existing street-vending/tehbazari rights subject to determination by the Town Vending Committee and the applicable scheme, but did not authorise vending in a prohibited zone.

The Court also applied the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, particularly Clause 1.1.20, which provides that an acknowledgement of survey does not confer a right to vend or squat, and Clause 2.1.6(g), which requires a registered vendor not to vend in non-vending zones or beyond permitted times.

It further relied on the order dated 11 October 2021 in New Delhi Traders Association v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation, W.P.(C) No. 11669/2021, recognising Connaught Place and Connaught Circus as no-vending/no-hawking zones except for 80 identified vendors, and on Vyapari Kalyan Mandal Main Pushpa v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, W.P.(C) No. 2556/2015, concerning the continued operation of pre-existing no-vending-zone declarations pending determination by the Town Vending Committee.

The Court held that inclusion in the NDMC’s list of 628 unauthorised squatters did not create or recognise any tehbazari or vending right.

The list expressly described the persons as unauthorised, and the proposed lottery for allotment of licences never resulted in the grant of licences to the petitioners.

The petitioners admittedly had neither a licence nor a Certificate of Vending.

Consequently, they could not claim the status of “pre-existing right holders” protected under the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 136/2016.

The Court further found that Connaught Place/Connaught Circus continued to be a no-vending/no-hawking zone, and that the petitioners were not among the 80 persons permitted to vend there.

Section 12 of the Street Vendors Act and the 2019 Scheme expressly prohibited vending in such zones.

A computer-generated receipt evidencing payment of money to the NDMC did not establish entitlement to vend, particularly as such receipts could be obtained without verification of the recipient’s legal status.

Since the petitioners had no pre-existing right and were vending in a prohibited zone, the NDMC’s removal of their goods was consistent with, and not contrary to, the earlier contempt orders.

Their inclusion in the list of 628 unauthorised squatters did not confer any vending or tehbazari right, and they were not entitled to vend in Connaught Place/Connaught Circus, a continuing “No Vending/No Hawking Zone”.

The NDMC’s removal of their goods was therefore lawful and did not constitute disobedience of the orders dated 30 May 2016 and 1 August 2016.

The contempt notices were discharged, both contempt petitions were dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.