State's duty to assist street vendors in relocating from non-vending to vending zones to protect livelihood.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a street vendor possessing a provisional CoV can be summarily removed from a non-vending zone without being provided an alternative vending site

The court held

The Court disposed of the petition by directing that the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from his current site until the Assistant Commissioner identifies and allots an appropriate alternative location within a permitted vending area

It also directed

The Petitioner is permitted to operate his vend using a small gas cylinder, provided he maintains hygiene, avoids pedestrian obstruction, and does not sub-let the site

These directions are provisional and subject to future plans formulated by the Town Vending Committee under Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act

01Facts

The Petitioner, a street vendor, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Police from harassing him or disrupting his snacks/food vending business at Netaji Subhash Marg, City-SP Zone

pp. 1-2

The Petitioner possesses a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV) under the category 'Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire'

p. 2

The MCD contended that the specific site at Netaji Subhash Marg is a designated 'non-vending zone'

p. 3

The Petitioner relied on recent Supreme Court guidance regarding the relocation of vendors

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether a street vendor possessing a provisional CoV can be summarily removed from a non-vending zone without being provided an alternative vending site

pp. 4-5

ii.2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to use a gas cylinder for his trade despite restrictive conditions in the CoV

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which governs the implementation of vending plans by the Town Vending Committee

p. 6

The Supreme Court in Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. (SLP (C) 21349/2025) established that the State has an active duty to support the transition of vendors from non-vending to vending zones to protect their right to livelihood

pp. 3-4

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

The Court observed that while the MCD correctly identified the area as a non-vending zone, the authorities cannot simply displace vendors without providing a "workable alternative"

pp. 4-5

By applying the Malkit Singh principle, the Court reasoned that the right to earn a living requires the State to identify appropriate vending locations before disrupting long-standing vending activities

p. 4

Regarding the use of fire/gas, the Court balanced safety concerns with the Petitioner’s specific CoV category ('Food/Snack with gas cylinder') by allowing the use of small/medium cylinders subject to strict hygiene and pedestrian-clearance conditions

pp. 5-6

The Court determined that until a permanent plan is formulated by the Town Vending Committee (TVC), the Petitioner’s livelihood must be protected through temporary relocation assistance

p. 6

05Holding

p. 6

The Petitioner is permitted to operate his vend using a small gas cylinder, provided he maintains hygiene, avoids pedestrian obstruction, and does not sub-let the site

pp. 5-6

These directions are provisional and subject to future plans formulated by the Town Vending Committee under Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act

p. 6

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF