01Facts
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.
Under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, local bodies must prepare vending plans and submit them to the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) for approval.
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.
p. 3 · pp. 7-8Shopkeepers in 'No-vending' zones like Connaught Place and Palika Bazar raised objections to the proposed plans.
p. 4Nearly 1,000 "Thareja Committee" approved squatters refused to participate in the Town Vending Committee (TVC) survey, leading to unauthorized occupation of corridors.
pp. 9-10In MCD areas, the situation remains more chaotic as the vending plan is not yet finalized and survey participation is low.
p. 1102Issues
i.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.
p. 4 / 6ii.2. Whether the ongoing occupation of "No-vending/No-hawking" areas by Tehbazari holders who refused the survey is legally permissible under existing schemes.
p. 9iii.3. Whether the issuance of "Provisional Certificates of Vending" (CoVs) is legally valid in the absence of a notified vending plan.
p. 1103Law 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.
pp. 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.
p. 4Thareja Committee guidelines regarding the rights of legacy squatters and Tehbazari holders.
p. 9Provisions 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 observed a "complete absence of decision-making" and administrative paralysis between the GNCTD, NDMC, and MCD.
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.
p. 8The GNCTD's Department of Urban Development appeared unaware of the pending submissions, leading to redundant correspondence.
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.
pp. 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.
pp. 11-1205Holding
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.
p. 11The Court directed the Chief Secretary of the GNCTD to assume personal responsibility for the deadlock.
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.
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.
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
