Street vendors cannot hawk in declared no-vending zones without specific judicial protection or committee approval.

The Petitioners, street vendors claiming to operate at Nehru Place Commercial Complex since 2004, filed this third writ petition seeking to restrain the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Police from evicting them

In their first petition (W.P.(C) 2566/2017), the Court ruled that Nehru Place was a "No-Vending Zone" and that the Petitioners lacked protection as their names were absent from the Thareja (1992) and Chopra (1996) Committee lists

An appeal to the Supreme Court against this order was dismissed in 2022

A second petition (W.P.(C) 506/2025) was dismissed on March 4, 2025, reiterating that the Petitioners had no right to vend in the area

The Petitioners subsequently withdrew a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court with liberty to "approach the concerned authorities," which they interpreted as grounds to file the present third writ petition

1. Whether the Petitioners possess a legal right to vend in the Nehru Place District Centre, a declared "No-Vending Zone"

2. Whether the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to approach "concerned authorities" entitles the Petitioners to re-litigate the same issue through a third writ petition

3. Whether unauthorized vending can be permitted in light of safety and security concerns identified in previous judicial proceedings

The Court applied the principles of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically noting that protection under Section 3(3) is contingent upon being a recognized vendor

It relied on the precedent set in Manushi Sangathan, Delhi v. DDA (LPA 766/2008), which established that Nehru Place is a "No-Hawking Zone," save for a limited list of 67 vendors under a pilot project and 85 others protected by specific court orders

The Court also adhered to the administrative declaration of Nehru Place as a "No Hawking Zone" confirmed by the DDA in 2009

Finally, it exercised its power to impose costs for frivolous and repetitive litigation

The Court observed that the Petitioners’ rights had already been adjudicated and rejected in two prior Division Bench rulings

It clarified that the Supreme Court’s grant of liberty to "approach the concerned authorities" referred to administrative bodies, not a license to initiate a third round of litigation on the same cause of action

The Court emphasized that Nehru Place is strictly a "No-Vending/No-Hawking Zone" due to "severe safety and security concerns," referencing a 2021 fire incident where the Court took suo moto notice of how overcrowding by vendors obstructed emergency services

The Bench found it "inexplicable" that the Petitioners continued to vend despite multiple eviction orders and held that their current presence in the area was "completely contrary" to established judicial mandates

The MCD was directed to take immediate action to ensure no unauthorized vendors operate in the area

Furthermore, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the Petitioners, payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee, for abusing the process of law through repetitive litigation

The matter was listed for compliance on May 21, 2026