Nehru Place declared a no-vending zone, with 90 recognised hawkers allowed a temporary site pending review by the Town Vending Committee

These connected proceedings concerned hawking and vending in the Nehru Place District Centre (NPDC), including a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with earlier directions and writ petitions by vendors and other parties.

Earlier decisions had declared the NPDC a no-hawking and no-vending zone, and the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to those decisions.

In separate suo motu proceedings following a fire, the Court received reports identifying serious emergency-access obstructions and a fire-service recommendation to make the area hawker-free.

At the present hearing, the Court was informed that more than 400 vendors were operating in the area and that the Town Vending Committee-II (TVC-II) was about to be constituted.

The Court identified 90 vendors in specified proceedings for interim relocation to Site X pending the TVC-II’s decision.

1. Whether, in light of prior judicial declarations and fire-safety concerns, the NPDC should remain a no-hawking and no-vending zone and unauthorized vendors be removed.

2. Whether identified vendors who had been vending in the area should receive a workable alternative site pending the TVC-II’s determination of their eligibility and vending location.

3. What directions were required for the TVC-II and the authorities to implement the relocation and ensure fire-safety compliance.

The Court applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, particularly Section 3(3), under which street vendors may not be evicted or relocated until the prescribed survey is completed and certificates of vending are issued; the Court also directed that the TVC-II communicate its decision under Section 18.

It relied on the prior decisions in Manushi Sangathan v. DDA, Bachchu Singh v. SDMC and Federation of Nehru Place Association v. SDMC, together with the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the challenges to the latter no-vending declarations.

It also applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh, which requires authorities removing vendors to assist their transition to lawful vending zones so that relocation does not impose disproportionate livelihood hardship.

The Court treated the prior no-hawking/no-vending declarations as binding, and the photographs and fire-service findings reinforced the need to keep the NPDC clear for pedestrian and emergency access.

At the same time, it recognised the statutory process under the 2014 Act and the need for a practical alternative for vendors pending TVC-II’s decision.

It therefore did not authorise general vending in the NPDC: it confined interim permission to the 90 listed vendors at Site X, subject to the TVC-II’s subsequent decision.

The 90 listed vendors were directed to move to Site X by 12 October 2026, where they could vend pending the TVC-II’s decision; the TVC-II was directed to decide their eligibility and vending location within two months of its constitution and communicate its decision under Section 18.

After 12 October 2026, the MCD could remove unauthorized vendors, after which the Delhi Fire Services was to inspect the area and file a compliance report.

The Delhi Police was directed to assist the MCD and DDA; the connected writ petitions and pending applications were disposed of, with the fire-service compliance matter listed for 30 November 2026.