Delhi High CourtAdministrative and Public LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

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

Bachchu Singh & Anr.v.Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors.

Street vendors cannot hawk in declared no-vending zones without specific judicial protection or committee approval.. Bachchu Singh & Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors.. Delhi High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioners have no right to vend in Nehru Place

It also directed

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

01Facts

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

¶ 2-4

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

¶ 7

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

¶ 9

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

¶ 10

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

¶ 11-12

02Issues

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

¶ 7, 18

ii.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

¶ 12, 19

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

¶ 16-17

03Law Applied

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

¶ 15 of 2017 order

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

¶ 5-6

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

¶ 10

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

¶ 24

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 Section 3

04Reasoning

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

¶ 18

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

¶ 11-12

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

¶ 16-17

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

¶ 21-23

05Holding

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioners have no right to vend in Nehru Place

¶ 19, 24

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

¶ 23

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

¶ 24

The matter was listed for compliance on May 21, 2026

¶ 25
Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Bachchu Singh & Anr.vsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi High Court · March 24, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment