Street Vendors Cannot Sell Tobacco Products Near Educational Institutions Despite Holding Valid Certificates Of Vending

The Petitioner, Noor Alam, is a street vendor holding a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV) under the category of "Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire" for the Central Zone, Ward S-55.

He filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that officials from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Police were obstructing his peaceful vending at a site near the VIP Gate, Nizamuddin Railway Station.

The MCD countered that the Petitioner was vending in front of "Mata Sushila Malhotra DAV Primary School," failed to maintain hygiene, and was selling prohibited items such as tobacco, cigarettes, and pan masala near a school.

The MCD provided geo-tagged photographs as evidence of the unhygienic conditions and the nature of the goods sold.

1. Whether a street vendor holding a valid CoV can be permitted to sell tobacco-related products and pan masala in the immediate vicinity of a primary school.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s right to vend is subject to health, hygiene, and non-obstruction of public access points.

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

It also relied on the judicial precedent set in Ram Prasad (deceased) through his daughter Rita Devi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (W.P.(C) 3524/2026), which established that street vends selling substances like gutka and pan masala are impermissible outside school premises and must be removed to ensure unobstructed ingress and egress for students.

The Court balanced the Petitioner’s right to livelihood under a valid CoV against public interest and child safety.

While acknowledging the Petitioner’s status as a legal vendor, the Court found the MCD’s evidence of tobacco sales and poor hygiene near a primary school compelling.

By applying the logic from Ram Prasad, the Court reasoned that vending rights are not absolute and cannot override the safety and statutory protections surrounding educational institutions.

The Court determined that while the Petitioner should not be deprived of his livelihood, the location and nature of the goods sold must be strictly regulated to prevent harm to young children and ensure public order/cleanliness.

The Court disposed of the petition by granting a middle ground: protecting the Petitioner from being prohibited from vending entirely but imposing strict conditions, including an express prohibition from selling tobacco or harmful products near the school, mandates to maintain hygiene and a dustbin, and a ban on subletting or creating permanent structures, subject to future plans formulated by the Town Vending Committee-II.