Provisional street vendors may vend subject to strict compliance with certificate conditions and public safety requirements.

The Petitioner claimed to be a street vendor operating for several years from the footpath/open space opposite Vishwa Sadan Building, near Satyam Cinema, District Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi.

He held a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV), URI No. 2337592, authorising vending under the category “Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire” in West Zone, Ward S-15.

On 22 July 2026, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) removed his cart and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 for release of the cart and perishable goods.

The MCD contended that the Petitioner was vending inside the District Centre and not in accordance with his provisional CoV; that he was selling fruit juices and cut fruits, which required a separate licence; and that he had failed to maintain cleanliness and hygiene and had encroached upon the footpath.

Photographs produced by the MCD showed substantial litter at the vending site, leading the Court to conclude that the Petitioner had not complied with the conditions of his provisional CoV.

Whether the Court should interfere with the removal of the Petitioner’s cart and the imposition of the ₹10,000 fine by the MCD.

Whether, notwithstanding the violations, the Petitioner should be permitted to continue vending on the basis of his provisional CoV, subject to specified conditions.

Whether the MCD should identify an alternate vending space for the Petitioner within the area covered by his provisional CoV.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to balance regulation of street vending with protection of the Petitioner’s livelihood.

It applied the conditions contained in the Petitioner’s provisional CoV, including the duties to maintain hygiene, avoid obstruction to pedestrians and vehicles, refrain from unauthorised activities, avoid blocking footpaths, and comply with the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019.

The Court also relied on Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, recognising that the directions would remain subject to any vending plan framed by the Town Vending Committee and would not create vested rights.

It further followed the conditions prescribed in Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., W.P.(C) 15082/2025, order dated 2 February 2026; Mohd. Badruddin v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 19391/2025, order dated 8 January 2026; and Rihana v. MCD & Ors., W.P.(C) 1609/2026, order dated 5 February 2026, concerning vendors operating with gas cylinders or fire.

The Court found that the MCD photographs demonstrated substantial litter and non-compliance with the hygiene and other conditions of the provisional CoV.

It therefore declined to interfere with the removal of the cart or the ₹10,000 fine.

However, because the Petitioner possessed a provisional CoV, the Court adopted a conditional approach to protect his livelihood while preserving public safety, pedestrian movement, traffic flow, hygiene, and regulatory control.

The Petitioner was permitted to vend strictly within West Zone, Ward S-15, using only a small gas cylinder, occupying a limited space, maintaining a dustbin and cleanliness, and refraining from permanent or temporary construction and third-party transfers of the CoV.

Condition No. 11, limiting mobile vending to 30 minutes or the time prescribed by the Town Vending Committee, was expressly held inapplicable, while all other CoV conditions continued to bind the Petitioner.

Since the CoV recognised vending rights within the relevant zone, the Assistant Commissioner, MCD was directed to identify an alternate vending space in a vending zone.

The Petitioner was nevertheless permitted to continue vending strictly in accordance with his provisional CoV and the additional conditions imposed by the Court, including use of a small gas cylinder, restriction to a non-obstructive space, maintenance of hygiene and a dustbin, and prohibition on sub-letting or construction.

The MCD was directed to identify an alternate vending space for him within a vending zone in West Zone, Ward S-15, within two weeks.

Subject to compliance with these conditions, the Petitioner’s vending activities were not to be disturbed; the directions remained subject to any plan framed by the Town Vending Committee and created no vested rights.