Facts
The Delhi High Court dealt with a cluster of petitions concerning the regulation of street vendors and Tehbazari holders in New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) areas.
Source reference: no citationUnder the Street Vendors Act, 2014, local bodies must prepare vending plans and submit them to the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) for approval.
Source reference: p. 3NDMC submitted its plan on 9th October 2025, but subsequent internal meetings in April 2026 revealed a need for 200 additional vending sites, contradicting previous submissions.
Source reference: p. 3, p. 7-8Shopkeepers in 'No-vending' zones like Connaught Place and Palika Bazar raised objections to the proposed plans.
Source reference: p. 4Nearly 1,000 "Thareja Committee" approved squatters refused to participate in the Town Vending Committee (TVC) survey, leading to unauthorized occupation of corridors.
Source reference: p. 9-10In MCD areas, the situation remains more chaotic as the vending plan is not yet finalized and survey participation is low.
Source reference: p. 11Issues
1. Whether the GNCTD and local bodies have complied with the statutory mandate of finalizing and notifying vending plans under Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
Source reference: p. 4 / 62. Whether the ongoing occupation of "No-vending/No-hawking" areas by Tehbazari holders who refused the survey is legally permissible under existing schemes.
Source reference: p. 93. Whether the issuance of "Provisional Certificates of Vending" (CoVs) is legally valid in the absence of a notified vending plan.
Source reference: p. 11Law Applied
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, particularly Section 21, which mandates the formulation and notification of a vending plan by the local authority in consultation with the GNCTD.
Source reference: p. 3-4Sudhir Madan and Ors. v. MCD and Ors. [2007 SCCOnLine SC 758], which approved specific schemes declaring Connaught Place and Rajiv Chowk as 'No-hawking' and 'No-vending' areas.
Source reference: p. 4Thareja Committee guidelines regarding the rights of legacy squatters and Tehbazari holders.
Source reference: p. 9Reasoning
The Court observed a "complete absence of decision-making" and administrative paralysis between the GNCTD, NDMC, and MCD.
Source reference: p. 11While the NDMC claimed to have submitted a plan, the Court found that the NDMC's own TVC meetings in April 2026 admitted the plan was incomplete, necessitating 200 more sites.
Source reference: p. 8The GNCTD's Department of Urban Development appeared unaware of the pending submissions, leading to redundant correspondence.
Source reference: p. 6The Court noted that the refusal of legacy Tehbazari holders to join the survey has created a "chaotic situation" where they occupy corridors of heritage areas like Connaught Place under the guise of old Supreme Court orders, despite those areas being designated as non-vending.
Source reference: p. 9-10In MCD areas, the failure to even constitute TVC-II or finalize a survey has resulted in an ad-hoc and unruly environment for pedestrians and residents.
Source reference: p. 11-12Holding
The Court held that the current situation reflects "utter confusion" and a failure of the three stakeholders (vendors, shopkeepers, and residents) to coexist due to administrative shifts.
The Court directed the Chief Secretary of the GNCTD to assume personal responsibility for the deadlock.
Source reference: p. 12The Chief Secretary is ordered to convene a high-level meeting on 2nd June 2026, including the Chairman of NDMC and the Commissioner of MCD, to finalize a roadmap for notifying the vending plans and address the legality of provisional CoVs.
Source reference: p. 12The Chief Secretary is further directed to join the next proceedings virtually on 27th July 2026 with a status report on the final decision taken by the government.
Source reference: p. 12Original Court PDF
Palika Bazar Shopkeepers Welfare Association And OrsvsGovt. Of Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in