Facts
The Petitioner, a street vendor, was issued a Certificate of Vending (CoV) by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under the category ‘Food/Snacks with gas cylinder/fire’ for a specific location at M Block Road, Greater Kailash-II
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging constant harassment by Police and MCD officials despite holding a valid CoV
Source reference: p. 2The MCD contended that the Petitioner is a mobile vendor and is bound by the restrictive conditions of the CoV
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether Condition No. 11 of the Certificate of Vending, which limits a mobile vendor’s stay at a single spot to 30 minutes, is applicable to the Petitioner given his specific vending category
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
Condition No. 11 of the Certificate of Vending, which restricts mobile vendors from staying in one spot for more than 30 minutes
Source reference: p. 4The legal principles established in Mohd Badruddin v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(C) 19391/2025], Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors., and Rihana v. MCD & Ors., which provide exemptions from temporal restrictions for vendors whose trade requires specific equipment like gas cylinders
Source reference: p. 3-4Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, regarding the authority of the Town Vending Committee (TVC)
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Court examined the Petitioner’s CoV and photographic evidence of his vending cart, noting that he was authorized to sell food items using a gas cylinder
Source reference: p. 2The Court reasoned that for a vendor in this specific category, the 30-minute restriction stipulated in Condition No. 11 is impractical and inconsistent with the nature of the permitted trade
Source reference: p. 3-4Aligning with recent precedents, the Court determined that as long as the Petitioner uses a small/medium cylinder, maintains hygiene, and does not obstruct pedestrian movement, the strict time limit of Condition No. 11 should be waived
Source reference: p. 4The Court emphasized that this relief does not grant a vested right to a permanent spot and remains subject to future planning by the Town Vending Committee
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Court disposed of the petition by exempting the Petitioner from Condition No. 11 of the CoV
It directed that: (a) the Petitioner may operate at his designated spot using a small/medium cylinder; (b) he must not encroach upon pedestrian areas; (c) he must maintain hygiene and use a dustbin; (d) he is prohibited from sub-letting or creating third-party interests; and (e) no permanent or temporary construction shall be erected
Source reference: p. 4-5These directions are subject to the eventual vending plan formulated by the Town Vending Committee–II under Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
Mukesh KumarvsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in