Specially Abled Street Vendors May Be Exempted from Mobile Vending Time Restrictions to Ensure Livelihood Protection.

The Petitioner, Shabbir Khan, a street vendor holding a Certificate of Vending (CoV) bearing URI No. 009420 issued by the MCD in the category of 'Others (Goods)', approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking protection to vend peacefully at his designated site near Moti Bagh Gurudwara, Nanakpura, Foot Over Bridge, New Delhi.

The Petitioner suffers from 80% locomotor disability on account of amputation of his left upper limb.

He operates a mobile cart selling packaged food items and daily commodities in the Satya Niketan/Vasant Vihar area, and alleged continuous harassment preventing him from vending.

The MCD countered that the cart was stationed on a busy main road where commuter stops caused traffic congestion and jams; however, it conceded that the Assistant Commissioner could identify an alternative vending spot within the vicinity itself.

1. Whether the Petitioner, being a valid CoV holder, is entitled to vend peacefully without harassment or obstruction by the Respondents.

2. Whether the Petitioner's vending rights can be regulated to prevent traffic congestion, and whether an alternative vending site ought to be identified.

3. Whether a specially-abled vendor ought to be exempted from Condition No. 11 of the CoV, which restricts mobile vendors from vending at one place beyond 30 minutes.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The terms and conditions of the CoV, which mandate, inter alia, adherence to designated vending zones, non-obstruction of pedestrian and vehicular movement (Condition No. 8), prohibition on vending on roads/blocking footpaths (Condition No. 12), and compliance with the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019 (Condition No. 16).

Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which empowers the Town Vending Committee (TVC) to formulate street vending plans, clarifying that no vested rights accrue to vendors against such plans.

The Court struck a balance between the Petitioner's right to livelihood as a certified vendor and the MCD's regulatory interest in preventing traffic congestion. Accepting the MCD's submission that the cart's location on a busy main road caused commuter stoppages and jams, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to identify a suitable alternative spot within the vicinity within one week and communicate it to the Petitioner.

Adopting a protective approach towards the Petitioner's 80% locomotor disability, the Court exempted him from Condition No. 11 (the 30-minute mobility restriction), reasoning that a specially-abled person cannot be expected to function as a mobile vendor.

This exemption was, however, conditioned upon strict compliance with all remaining CoV conditions—confinement to the designated space, non-encroachment of pedestrian areas, maintenance of hygiene with a dustbin at the site, and a bar on any permanent or temporary construction.

Finally, by making the entire arrangement subject to any future TVC-II plan under Section 21 of the 2014 Act, the Court ensured the protection remained provisional rather than conferring vested rights.

The Petitioner shall comply with all CoV conditions, save Condition No. 11, from which he stands exempted as a specially-abled person.

The Petitioner shall remain confined to his allotted space, maintain cleanliness with a dustbin at the vend, and erect no permanent or temporary structure.

The directions are subject to any plan of TVC-II under Section 21 of the 2014 Act, with no vested rights created.

Subject to the above, the Petitioner shall not be disturbed in his vending activities.

The concerned SHO shall monitor the vend to ensure the Petitioner does not vend on the main road under the footover bridge, with a copy of the order to be communicated to the APP for compliance.