Licensed mobile street vendors must strictly adhere to Certificate of Vending terms, prohibiting stationary vending in non-vending zones.

The Petitioners, thirteen street vendors, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the Respondents to allow them to peacefully vend at sites allotted under their respective provisional Certificates of Vending (CoVs).

The Petitioners claimed they were being obstructed despite holding CoVs for specific wards in Karol Bagh and Rajinder Nagar.

They further argued that recommendations from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs under the PM SVANidhi Scheme implied they had been allotted fixed vending locations.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) opposed the plea, stating that the Petitioners failed to annex the standard terms and conditions of the CoVs which govern their vending activities.

1. Whether the recommendations issued for loan facilities under the PM SVANidhi Scheme override or alter the category of vending specified in the CoVs issued by the MCD.

2. Whether the Petitioners, as holders of provisional CoVs, are entitled to carry out vending as stationary/fixed vendors in prohibited or "No-vending" zones.

The Court applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically regarding the authority of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) to frame vending plans under Section 21.

The court also relied on the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019, and the standard "Terms & Conditions of the Vending Certificate," which mandate that mobile vendors must not remain stationary for more than 30 minutes and must not obstruct pedestrian movement or occupy "No-vending" zones.

The Court reasoned that the provisional CoVs are the primary documents determining the category of vending, and any external recommendations for financial assistance (like PM SVANidhi) do not grant vested rights to a fixed location.

Upon reviewing the Petitioners' CoVs, the Court observed that their category was listed as "Others" or "Mobile," necessitating that they remain mobile and not squat in one location.

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that areas like Ajmal Khan Road are designated "No-vending" zones.

Therefore, the legal protections afforded to the vendors are strictly contingent upon their compliance with the standard terms of the CoV, which prohibit permanent structures, blocking footpaths, or vending in restricted zones.

It directed that: (a) Petitioners must remain mobile and comply with CoV conditions; (b) they are prohibited from vending in "No-vending" or "No-hawking" areas; (c) authorities (MCD/SHO) are authorized to remove them if they obstruct pedestrian movement or Metro station access; and (d) they may only vend in a mobile manner within the wards specified in their CoVs.

These directions are subject to future plans formulated by the Town Vending Committee-II under Section 21 of the Act.