Street vendor's right to vend is contingent upon strict adherence to Certificate of Vending spatial and hygiene conditions.

The Petitioner, a street vendor near Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station holding a Certificate of Vending (CoV) for food and snacks, sought a writ to prevent alleged harassment by authorities and to convert his status to a "Stationary Vendor".

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) presented opposing photographs showing the Petitioner occupying a large portion of the public footpath with unauthorized tables and chairs, functioning as a small food outlet rather than a mobile vendor.

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to protection against municipal action given the alleged violation of his Certificate of Vending terms.

2. Whether the Petitioner intentionally misled the Court by filing inaccurate photographs of the vending site.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction to issue writs.

The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically Section 21 concerning the authority of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) to frame vending plans.

The general legal principle that a litigant seeking equitable relief must come to the court with "clean hands" and not suppress material facts or provide misleading evidence.

The Court found that the Petitioner had actively misled the bench by filing photographs that concealed the true extent of his encroachment on public space.

Upon reviewing the MCD's evidence, the Court determined that the Petitioner was in clear violation of his CoV conditions by obstructing pedestrian movement with furniture.

The Court reasoned that to protect the Petitioner’s livelihood while maintaining public order, he must be restricted to a specific footprint without permanent or temporary structures, ensuring the footpath remains accessible to pedestrians.

The Petitioner was ordered to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks as a penalty for misleading the Court.