Delhi High Court

Mobile street vendors with Certificates of Vending cannot claim vested rights to specific geographical spaces or spots.

Rabindra Nath vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: July 27, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Petitioner, a street vendor, was issued a Certificate of Vending (CoV) by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for selling "Food/Snacks without gas cylinder/fire"

Source reference: p. 2

He approached the High Court seeking directions to allow him to vend peacefully at a specific site near M-Block Market, Greater Kailash-II, alleging harassment and the inability to use that spot due to parked cars

Source reference: p. 1-3

The MCD contended that the Petitioner is a "mobile vendor" and must comply with the conditions of his CoV

Source reference: p. 3
02

Issues

1. Whether a street vendor classified as a "mobile vendor" under a Certificate of Vending can claim a right to a specific/permanent geographical space for vending

Source reference: p. 4, para. 7

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to protection against harassment while carrying out vending activities under the terms of the CoV

Source reference: p. 5, para. 9
03

Law Applied

The Court primarily applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically Section 21 regarding the formulation of vending plans by the Town Vending Committee (TVC)

Source reference: p. 5, para. 8

Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019, and the specific terms of the Certificate of Vending, notably Condition No. 11, which mandates that mobile vendors shall not vend for more than 30 minutes at any single place

Source reference: p. 4, para. 6
04

Reasoning

The Court examined the Petitioner’s CoV and found that strictly adhering to Condition No. 11, the Petitioner is classified as a mobile vendor

Source reference: p. 4, para. 7

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the Petitioner cannot assert a vested legal right to any particular spot or permanent location

Source reference: p. 4, para. 7

The Court balanced the vendor's right to livelihood with public order by imposing conditions regarding cleanliness, the absence of permanent structures, and the supremacy of future TVC vending plans

Source reference: p. 5, para. 7-8
05

Holding

The Court held that the Petitioner must operate strictly as a mobile vendor and cannot claim rights to a specific spot

The Court ordered that the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from his vending activities provided he: (i) maintains cleanliness and uses a dustbin; (ii) erects no permanent or temporary structures; and (iii) creates no third-party rights in the CoV; these directions remain subject to future plans formulated by the Town Vending Committee–II under Section 21 of the Act

Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 7, 8, 9
Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Rabindra NathvsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

Delhi High Court · July 27, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment