Street Vendor Entitled to Stationary Vending and Exemption from Time-Limit Conditions Under Specific License Categories.

The Petitioner, a street vendor, holds a Certificate of Vending (CoV) issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under the category ‘Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire’ for a spot near Kashmiri Gate Metro Gate No. 3

The Petitioner approached the High Court alleging harassment by police and municipal authorities who prevented him from using gas cylinders and obstructed his vending activities

The MCD contended that the Petitioner was using two large cylinders, which violated the conditions of the CoV, and was operating in a ‘non-vending zone’

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to protection from harassment and allowed to vend using a gas cylinder despite restrictive conditions in the CoV

2. Whether Condition No. 11 of the CoV, which restricts mobile vendors to 30 minutes at a single spot, should apply to a vendor authorized to use fire/gas for food preparation

The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically Section 21 regarding the formulation of vending plans by the Town Vending Committee (TVC)

Judicial precedents established in Mohd Badruddin v. MCD (W.P.(C) 19391/2025), Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police (W.P.(C) 15082/2025), and Rihana v. MCD (W.P.(C) 1609/2026), which recognized that for vendors authorized to cook/heat food, certain restrictive CoV conditions (like the 30-minute stay limit) are impractical and may be exempted subject to safety and hygiene guidelines

The Court examined the Petitioner’s CoV and photographs of the vending cart

Reasoning that a vendor authorized to sell food using a gas cylinder cannot reasonably comply with the 30-minute mobility restriction (Condition No. 11), the Court followed its own recent precedents to grant an exemption

Addressing the MCD's safety concerns regarding large cylinders, the Court balanced the vendor's right to livelihood with public safety by mandating the use of only small or medium-sized cylinders

Regarding the MCD's claim that the area was a ‘non-vending zone’, the Court shifted the burden to the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to identify and provide an alternative space, ensuring that the Petitioner’s right to vend is preserved while maintaining urban planning norms

All protections are subject to the final vending plan to be formulated by TVC-II under Section 21 of the Act