Facts
The Petitioner, a street vendor with a 40% locomotor disability holding a Certificate of Vending (CoV), was evicted from his site near Sarai Kale Khan by the Delhi Police and MCD
Source reference: p. 1-2The eviction was part of an infrastructure project for the Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) and Namo Bharat Station, aimed at clearing unauthorized encroachments to facilitate passenger ingress/egress
Source reference: p. 2, 5On 7th July 2026, the High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to identify an alternative vending site for the Petitioner within one week
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioner filed the present application (CM APPL. 46313/2026) seeking compliance with that order, alleging that no alternate site had been provided after more than two weeks
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the State is mandated to provide an immediate alternative vending site to a disabled CoV holder when eviction is necessitated by a public infrastructure project
Source reference: p. 3, 62. Whether the right of street vendors to carry out trade must be balanced against the fundamental right of pedestrians to safe walking spaces
Source reference: p. 5-6Law Applied
The court applied Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the inherent powers of the court to issue directions for justice
Source reference: p. 1Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically concerning the validity of the Certificate of Vending (CoV)
Source reference: p. 1-2The precedent set by the Supreme Court in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. (2026 INSC 647), which recognized the right of pedestrians to safe, demarcated walking spaces and footpaths as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while the Petitioner’s status as a disabled person with a valid CoV warrants "compassionate and empathetic" consideration, infrastructure projects like the RRTS take precedence to ensure public safety and mobility
Source reference: p. 2-3The Court noted the SDM’s report dated 24th June 2026, which highlighted rampant encroachment and 229 stalls obstructing the Sarai Kale Khan transit hub
Source reference: p. 5Applying the Maniyar Iliyaz doctrine, the Court held that the rights of street vendors are not absolute and must be balanced against the fundamental rights of pedestrians to have unobstructed access to public transport hubs
Source reference: p. 5-6The Court found that the delay in allotting an alternate site was justified by the complexity of the Special Task Force's (STF) ongoing action plan to manage various factors, including traffic flow and commuter difficulty
Source reference: p. 5-6Holding
The Court held that while the Petitioner is entitled to an alternate site due to his disability and CoV status, the authorities require sufficient time to ensure such placement does not impede public movement
The Court granted the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, an additional four weeks to identify a suitable alternate space for the Petitioner
Source reference: p. 6It explicitly ordered that the activities of the Special Task Force must not be impeded by street vendors and disposed of the application with a directive that the Petitioner must strictly abide by vending terms once relocated
Source reference: p. 3, 6Original Court PDF
Ranjit KumarvsSub Divisional Magistrate Jangpura And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in