Facts
The three Petitioners are street vendors holding Certificates of Vending (CoV) under the category ‘Food/Snack without Gas Cylinder/Fire’ for Ward S-56, Central Zone.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 2They alleged that despite possessing valid CoVs, they were being prevented from vending in the area between Namo Bharat Rapid Station and Sarai Kale Khan.
Source reference: p. 1-5, para. 3-4The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) contended that a prior Division Bench order in Sudhir Kumar Ojha v. MCD (W.P.(C) 18987/25) directed the removal of unauthorized encroachments in that specific area.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 6The MCD further argued that the Petitioners were violating Condition No. 11 of their CoV by maintaining stationary vends instead of operating as mobile vendors.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 7Issues
1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to protection from eviction/harassment while vending in the Sarai Kale Khan area notwithstanding the prohibitory orders against unauthorized encroachment.
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 9-102. Whether the Petitioners’ conduct of maintaining stationary vends violates the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Vending (CoV).
Source reference: p. 6, para. 7Law Applied
The court applied the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019, and the specific terms and conditions attached to the Certificate of Vending (CoV) issued under the Street Vendors Act.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 8Condition No. 11, which mandates that mobile vendors shall not stay at one location for more than 30 minutes, and Condition No. 12, which prohibits blocking footpaths or vending on roads.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 8The court also harmonized these rules with the directions issued in Sudhir Kumar Ojha v. MCD regarding the removal of illegal hawking.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 9Reasoning
The Court balanced the Petitioners' right to vend under the CoV with the necessity of maintaining public order and traffic flow as directed by a coordinate bench.
Source reference: p. 1-5, para. 3The Court reasoned that the protection granted by a CoV is not absolute but conditional upon strict adherence to its terms.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 10Specifically, since the Petitioners are classified as mobile vendors, they cannot claim a right to a permanent or stationary spot under Condition No. 11.
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 7-8The Court determined that while the Petitioners cannot be "disturbed" if they comply with the Law, the MCD and Police retain the authority to act against them if they cause hindrances or stay stationary beyond the permitted time.
Source reference: p. 7-8, para. 10-11Holding
The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Petitioners to strictly adhere to the CoV conditions, specifically operating only as mobile vendors.
It held that if the Petitioners comply with the CoV terms, they shall not be disturbed; however, any violation will subject them to "stringent action" by the MCD or Police.
Source reference: p. 7-8, para. 11Finally, the Court directed that the Petitioners' representations to the Town Vending Committee (TVC) be considered once the TVC-II is duly constituted.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 12Original Court PDF
Lalu Prasad Yadav And Ors.vsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in