Provisional certificates of vending do not confer rights to fixed vending sites.

Forty-two petitioners invoked Article 226 seeking directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) to specify their exact vending sites in their provisional Certificates of Vending (“CoVs”), and challenged the omission of such sites as illegal.

The record contained only one affidavit, filed by petitioner Manik Chand, and one provisional CoV, issued to Jagdamba Prasad.

Despite an earlier direction requiring all petitioners to file personal affidavits, none had been filed.

The MCD contended that the petitioners were, at best, mobile vendors without any identified stationary sites.

Photographs indicated that the petitioners were operating as stationary shops, encroaching on footpaths and pedestrian areas, causing traffic obstruction, and failing to maintain cleanliness and hygiene.

Whether holders of provisional CoVs could claim identified or fixed stationary vending sites merely by virtue of those certificates.

Whether the MCD should verify the existence of provisional CoVs in respect of all 42 petitioners and permit verified holders to vend as mobile vendors, subject to the applicable conditions.

Whether the petitioners’ vending activities could be regulated or discontinued for lack of a provisional CoV or breach of the conditions governing vending.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to regulate the relief sought in accordance with the terms of the provisional CoVs.

The governing terms prohibited encroachment, obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular movement, erection of permanent or temporary structures, subletting, and vending in non-vending areas; required compliance with hygiene and public-health obligations; and permitted cancellation or suspension for violations.

The Court further applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, particularly Section 21 concerning the Town Vending Committee’s plan, and held that its directions would remain subject to any such plan, without creating vested rights.

The Court held that a provisional CoV did not confer a right to a fixed vending site.

The certificates were expressly subject to conditions requiring mobile vending, prohibiting obstruction and structures, and requiring cleanliness and hygiene.

The claim for fixed sites was also unsupported by the record because the Court could not establish that all 42 petitioners possessed provisional CoVs, and the petitioners had failed to file the personal affidavits earlier directed.

The photographs further demonstrated conduct inconsistent with the certificates, including stationary operation, footpath encroachment, traffic obstruction, and unhygienic conditions.

Accordingly, rather than grant fixed-site relief, the Court directed verification and permitted only compliant mobile vending, subject to additional safeguards concerning restricted operating space, pedestrian access, cleanliness, dustbins, non-subletting, and the prohibition on construction.

It directed the MCD to verify whether each of the 42 petitioners possessed a provisional CoV and, upon verification, to allow them to vend only as mobile vendors.

Verified holders were required to comply with the existing CoV conditions and the additional restrictions imposed by the Court, including avoiding pedestrian obstruction, maintaining hygiene, not subletting the CoVs, and not erecting any structure.

Persons without provisional CoVs or those violating the conditions could be removed by the MCD.

The directions were made subject to the Town Vending Committee–II’s plan under Section 21 of the 2014 Act, with no vested rights being created, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.