Mandatory Chief Secretary Intervention Ordered to Resolve Chronic Non-Implementation of Statutory Street Vending Plans and Survey Deadlocks.

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 under the 2014 Act

The court held

The Court held that the prevailing administrative stalemate requires immediate intervention by the highest executive authority of the GNCTD

It also directed

It directed the Chief Secretary of GNCTD to convene a meeting on June 2, 2026, with the Chairman of NDMC and the Commissioner of MCD to finalize how the government intends to proceed with the Vending Plans and the issue of provisional CoVs

The Chief Secretary was ordered to file a status report and join the next hearing virtually on July 27, 2026

The NDMC was specifically directed to file an affidavit regarding the refusal of license holders to participate in surveys

01Facts

The Delhi High Court addressed a cluster of petitions concerning the regulation of street vendors and tehbazari holders in the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) areas

p. 3

Under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, local bodies must prepare vending plans identifying vendors and sites for government approval

p. 3

In NDMC areas, a plan was submitted on October 9, 2025, but remained pending with the GNCTD despite court directions to hear shopkeepers' objections

p. 4

Simultaneously, the NDMC Town Vending Committee (TVC) sought to add 200 more sites in April 2026

pp. 7-9

In MCD areas, the survey remained incomplete, and over 13,000 tehbazari holders had not participated

p. 11

The court noted a breakdown in the administrative machinery and a failure to address "no-vending" zones like Connaught Place

pp. 3-11

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 under the 2014 Act

p. 6, 11

ii.2. Whether the issuance of provisional Certificates of Vending (CoVs) is legally permissible and effective in regulating street vending in Delhi

p. 11

iii.3. Whether the continued occupation of "no-vending" zones by non-participating tehbazari holders violates existing judicial mandates and schemes

pp. 9-10

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically Section 21, which mandates the formulation and notification of a Vending Plan

pp. 3-4

It relied on the precedent set in Sudhir Madan and Ors. v. MCD and Ors. [2007 SCCOnLine SC 758], which approved specific schemes declaring areas like Connaught Place as "No-hawking" and "No-vending" zones

pp. 3-4

General principles of administrative law regarding "decision-making" and "shirking of responsibility" were also invoked to address the delay by the Urban Development Department, GNCTD

pp. 9-11

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 "utter confusion" among stakeholders

p. 11

It found that the GNCTD was unaware of the status of plans already submitted by the NDMC

p. 6

The Court reasoned that the NDMC was inconsistent, proposing 200 additional sites after submitting a "final" plan

p. 9

The Court highlighted a critical legal gap: thousands of tehbazari holders (approved by the Thareja Committee) refuse to participate in the TVC survey, creating a dual system where they occupy corridors under old Supreme Court protections while new vendors operate under provisional CoVs

pp. 9-10

In MCD areas, the situation was deemed "even worse" due to the failure to even constitute TVC-II or finalize a survey

p. 11

The Court reasoned that the clash between vendors, shopkeepers, and pedestrians necessitated high-level executive intervention rather than piecemeal judicial orders

pp. 11-12