Mobile vendors must strictly adhere to Certificate of Vending conditions and maintain mobility to prevent unauthorized encroachment.

The Petitioners, Deepak Prasad and Niam Khan, are street vendors holding Certificates of Vending (CoV) for ‘Electronic Items’ in the Central Zone, Ward S-56.

They claimed they were being prevented from peacefully vending in the area between Namo Bharat Rapid Station and Sarai Kale Khan Metro Station (Gate Nos. 2-3) despite their valid certificates.

They had submitted representations to the Town Vending Committee (TVC) on 30th March and 7th April 2026, which remained unconsidered.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) contended that the Petitioners were violating CoV Condition No. 11 by remaining stationary for more than 30 minutes and noted a prior High Court order in Sudhir Kumar Ojha v. MCD (2026) directing the removal of illegal encroachments in the same high-traffic area.

1. Whether the Petitioners, as CoV holders, are entitled to vend in the specified area despite the general directions for removal of encroachments in Sudhir Kumar Ojha.

2. Whether the Petitioners’ conduct as stationary vendors violated the terms and conditions of their mobile vending certificates.

Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019, which governs the rights and obligations of vendors.

Terms & Conditions of the Vending Certificate establishes that mobile vendors are prohibited from staying at a single location for more than 30 minutes (Condition 11), must not block footpaths or roads (Condition 12), and cannot construct permanent or temporary structures (Condition 14).

The court also integrated the principle of judicial discipline by adhering to a Co-ordinate Bench’s directions in Sudhir Kumar Ojha v. MCD [W.P.(C) 18987/25], which mandates the removal of unauthorized hawking to ensure smooth traffic flow.

The Court balanced the Petitioners' right to vend under the Street Vendors Act with the public interest of maintaining clear access to transit hubs like the Sarai Kale Khan Metro and Railway stations.

The Court observed that while the Petitioners possessed valid CoVs, those certificates are conditional rather than absolute.

By reviewing the photographs provided, the Court addressed the MCD’s concern that the Petitioners were operating as stationary "squatters" rather than mobile vendors.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioners could only seek protection from harassment if they strictly complied with the 16 conditions listed in their CoV, particularly the 30-minute time limit for mobile vending.

It held that the prior order in Sudhir Kumar Ojha aimed at "illegal" vending did not preclude legal vending, provided such vending strictly followed the regulatory framework of a mobile certificate.

The Court held that any violation of these conditions would render the Petitioners liable for "stringent action" by the MCD or Police.

The Court directed the Town Vending Committee-II to consider the Petitioners' pending representations once the committee is duly constituted.