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

The proceedings concerned vending and hawking in the Nehru Place District Centre, including a contempt petition alleging breach of earlier directions and several petitions by vendors seeking permission to vend.

Earlier decisions had permitted certain vendors to operate, while later decisions declared Nehru Place a “No-hawking” and “No-vending” zone; the Supreme Court dismissed challenges to those decisions in 2022.

In separate proceedings arising from a 2021 fire, the Court directed a fire drill, which identified serious access obstructions and recommended that the area be made hawker-free.

At the hearing, the Court was informed that over 400 vendors were operating in the area, but identified 90 vendors appearing in specified proceedings and lists as having claims requiring consideration.

The Court also considered the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the impending constitution of TVC-II, and the Supreme Court’s directions concerning assistance to vendors displaced from vending locations.

1. Whether Nehru Place District Centre should continue to be treated as a “No-hawking” and “No-vending” zone, and whether unauthorized vendors could be removed despite the claims of vendors protected by earlier orders.

2. Whether the identified vendors should receive interim permission to vend at an alternative site pending determination of their entitlement by TVC-II under the 2014 Act.

3. Whether the authorities were required to facilitate the relocation of vendors displaced from a no-vending area.

Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 protects street vendors from eviction or relocation until the prescribed survey is completed and certificates of vending are issued; the judgment also directed that TVC-II communicate its decision in accordance with Section 18.

The Court treated the earlier decisions in Bachchu Singh v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Federation of Nehru Place Association (Regd.) v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation—which declared Nehru Place a no-hawking and no-vending zone, and which were not disturbed by the Supreme Court—as binding on the present proceedings.

It also applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh (9 April 2026), which requires authorities displacing vendors to provide active assistance in transitioning to available vending zones, so that relocation is a workable alternative rather than merely a formal one.

The fire-safety directions and findings in the suo motu proceedings provided an additional basis for ensuring clear access and removing obstructions.

The Court considered the prior judicial declarations, the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the challenges to them, the photographs of the area, and the fire-service findings.

It concluded that the no-vending designation had to be maintained across Nehru Place, while also recognizing the need to address the identified vendors’ claims under the 2014 Act and to provide a practical alternative location consistent with Malkit Singh.

It therefore permitted the 90 vendors listed in Annexure A to vend temporarily at Site X, without determining their ultimate entitlement: TVC-II was to decide whether they qualified for certificates of vending and, if so, their vending location.

The Court distinguished those vendors from the other vendors operating in the area, whom it treated as unauthorized and subject to removal.

The 90 vendors listed in Annexure A were directed to move to Site X by 12 October 2026, pending TVC-II’s decision, which was to be made within two months of TVC-II’s constitution.

After 12 October 2026, MCD could remove unauthorized vendors; the Delhi Fire Services was to inspect the area after their removal and file a compliance report in W.P.(C) 8430/2021.

The Court also provided a process for other vendors and applicants whose names appeared in the DDA affidavit to seek consideration by MCD.

The connected petitions and pending applications were disposed of.