Judicial Mandate for Chief Secretary Intervention to Resolve Systemic Failure in Vending Plan Implementation

In brief

The question

1. Whether the GNCTD and local bodies (NDMC/MCD) have failed in their statutory duty to finalize and implement the Street Vending Plan in accordance with Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.

The court held

The Court held that the current situation reflects "utter confusion" and a failure of the statutory machinery.

It also directed

The Chief Secretary of GNCTD was ordered to convene a high-level meeting on June 2, 2026, with the Chairman of NDMC and the Commissioner of MCD to resolve the deadlock, finalize the vending plans, and address the refusal of certain vendors to participate in surveys. The Chief Secretary was directed to file a status report and join the next proceedings virtually on July 27, 2026.

01Facts

The Delhi High Court addressed a batch of petitions concerning the regulation of street vending and tehbazari (hawking) licenses in both New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) areas.

p. 3

Under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, local bodies were required to conduct surveys, identify vending sites, and submit vending plans to the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) for approval.

p. 3

While NDMC submitted a plan in October 2025, subsequent TVC meetings suggested the need for 200 additional sites.

p. 7

Concurrently, shopkeeper associations from Connaught Place and Palika Bazar objected to vending in areas historically declared as "No-hawking" zones.

p. 3

Procedural delays and lack of coordination between the NDMC, MCD, and GNCTD resulted in a failure to finalize these plans, leading to unregulated vending and congestion in major markets.

p. 11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the GNCTD and local bodies (NDMC/MCD) have failed in their statutory duty to finalize and implement the Street Vending Plan in accordance with Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.

p. 4, 10

ii.2. Whether the continued occupation of "No-vending" zones by tehbazari holders and squatters who refused to participate in the statutory survey is legally permissible.

p. 9

iii.3. Whether the issuance of provisional Certificates of Vending (CoVs) is legally valid pending the final notification of the vending plan.

p. 11

03Law Applied

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically Section 21, which mandates the preparation of a vending plan by local authorities and its subsequent approval by the Government.

pp. 3-4

Precedent set by the Supreme Court in Sudhir Madan and Ors. v. MCD and Ors. [2007 SCCOnLine SC 758], which approved the declaration of Rajiv Chowk and Indira Chowk as "No-hawking" and "No-vending" areas.

p. 4

Functions of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) as the primary body for identifying and surveying vendors.

p. 4

Provisions 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 a lack of coordination between agencies. NDMC submitted a plan but then sought to identify 200 more sites, rendering the submitted plan incomplete; meanwhile, the GNCTD appeared unaware of the status of submissions.

pp. 6-7

The Court highlighted that approximately 740 Thareja Committee-approved squatters and 225 tehbazari holders refused to participate in the mandatory survey, yet continued to occupy corridors in Connaught Place, effectively bypassing the 2014 Act.

pp. 9-10

In MCD areas, the situation was deemed "worse," as surveys remained unfinished and TVC-II was not yet constituted.

p. 11

The Court reasoned that the conflicting interests of vendors, shopkeepers, and pedestrians had created a "chaotic situation" that could only be resolved through high-level executive intervention rather than piecemeal litigation.

pp. 11-12