Delhi High CourtAdministrative and Public LawEmployment and Labour Law

Removed From Kalkaji Mandir, Vendor May Vend Only As Mobile Seller Under CoV Terms: Delhi HC

Dinesh Sahuv.Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

Removed From Kalkaji Mandir, Vendor May Vend Only As Mobile Seller Under CoV Terms: Delhi HC. Dinesh Sahu vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. Delhi High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to vend at the claimed site under his existing CoV.

The court held

The petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to operate as a mobile vendor, subject to compliance with all CoV conditions.

It also directed

The permission was also subject to the petitioner making a representation to TVC-II seeking reclassification as a stationary vendor and to any vending plan adopted by TVC-II; no vested rights could be claimed.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner, a street vendor holding a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV) for “Food, snack preparation (goods)” in the Kalkaji area, was removed by Delhi Police from vending outside Kalkaji Mandir on 15 September 2026.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–6

He sought permission to vend from the footpath near Aastha Kunj Road, Kalkaji Mandir Chowk.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–6

The Court noted that the CoV did not designate him as a stationary vendor and set out the conditions governing his vending activities.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 7–8

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner could be permitted to vend at the claimed site under his existing CoV.

p. 2 · ¶ 5–7

ii.Whether that permission could be granted subject to a request to the Town Vending Committee (TVC-II) to change his category to that of a stationary vendor.

p. 3 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides the basis for the Court’s writ jurisdiction.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

The petitioner’s vending was governed by the terms and conditions of his CoV, including requirements concerning the designated vending period and zone, pedestrian access, hygiene, and the restriction that mobile vendors may not remain at a place for more than 30 minutes or such time as the TVC prescribes.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 8

The Court also made its directions subject to a vending plan that TVC-II may frame under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and to the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2019.

p. 3 · ¶ 8, 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 Section 21

04Reasoning

Because the petitioner’s CoV covered food and snack preparation but did not classify him as a stationary vendor, the Court held that he could operate only as a mobile vendor and in accordance with the CoV’s conditions.

p. 2 · ¶ 7 · p. 3 · ¶ 9

The Court therefore did not grant an unconditional right to vend at the claimed site.

p. 3 · ¶ 9–11

It made the permission conditional on compliance with the CoV and subject to the petitioner applying to TVC-II for a category change, as well as to any vending plan framed under Section 21.

p. 3 · ¶ 9–11

05Holding

The petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to operate as a mobile vendor, subject to compliance with all CoV conditions.

p. 3 · ¶ 9

The permission was also subject to the petitioner making a representation to TVC-II seeking reclassification as a stationary vendor and to any vending plan adopted by TVC-II; no vested rights could be claimed.

p. 3 · ¶ 10–11

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

p. 4 · ¶ 12
Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Dinesh SahuvsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

Delhi High Court · November 02, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment