Street vendors holding provisional certificates cannot be disturbed while complying with prescribed conditions.

The Petitioner, a street vendor, had been vending for several years from a site on the footpath in front of the HP Petrol Pump, Shyamnath Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

He held a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV), bearing URI No. 7595053, for the category “Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire” in City SP Zone, Ward 83-N.

The Petitioner alleged that officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Police repeatedly interfered with his vending activities despite the provisional CoV.

He therefore sought directions permitting him to vend peacefully at the fixed vending site.

The MCD opposed the request on the ground that vending could not be permitted on the footpath.

Whether the Petitioner, holding a provisional CoV, should be permitted to continue vending at the identified site, subject to conditions preventing obstruction to pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

Whether the Petitioner’s vending activities could be protected notwithstanding the time restriction contained in Condition No. 11 of the provisional CoV.

Whether such permission would remain subject to the vending plan framed by the Town Vending Committee under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing street vending under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, particularly Section 21 concerning the vending plan of the Town Vending Committee.

It also applied the conditions contained in the Petitioner’s provisional CoV, including the obligations not to obstruct pedestrian or vehicular movement, maintain hygiene, display the CoV, avoid unauthorised activities, refrain from permanent or temporary construction, and comply with the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019.

The Court further followed the approach adopted in Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., W.P.(C) 15082/2025, order dated 2 February 2026; Mohd. Badruddin v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 19391/2025, order dated 8 January 2026; and Rihana v. MCD & Ors., W.P.(C) 1609/2026, order dated 5 February 2026, concerning vendors operating under the category “Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire”.

The governing principle was that vending could be protected to safeguard livelihood where it did not obstruct public movement, subject to regulatory conditions and without creating vested rights.

On examining the photographs, the Court found that the Petitioner was vending beside a tree in an area adjoining the footpath and that his activities did not appear to obstruct pedestrians.

Balancing the Petitioner’s livelihood interest against public safety and free movement, the Court permitted the vending activity subject to strict spatial, hygiene, and safety requirements.

The Petitioner was required to use only a small gas cylinder placed on the cart, remain within the area shown in the photographs, avoid obstruction or traffic congestion, maintain cleanliness, and keep a dustbin near the vending site.

In line with the earlier comparable orders, the Court relaxed Condition No. 11 of the CoV, but retained all other conditions and expressly prohibited sub-letting, creation of third-party interests, and construction of any permanent or temporary structure.

The protection was made subject to any future vending plan framed under Section 21 of the 2014 Act, ensuring that the order did not confer a permanent or vested right to the site.

Condition No. 11 of the CoV would not apply to him, while all other CoV conditions would remain operative.

The Petitioner was required to use only a small gas cylinder, remain within the prescribed space, avoid obstruction to pedestrians and vehicular traffic, maintain hygiene, and refrain from creating third-party rights or erecting any structure.

Subject to these requirements, the Petitioner’s vending activities were not to be disturbed; however, the directions remained subject to any vending plan subsequently prepared by the Town Vending Committee under Section 21 of the 2014 Act, and no vested right could be claimed.