Delhi High Court

Street vendors in non-vending zones cannot be evicted until alternative vending sites are identified and allotted.

Anuj Kumar Srivastav vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: April 16, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Petitioner, a street vendor, sought directions to the Respondents to allow him to vend peacefully from his site at Netaji Subhash Marg, near Lal Qila, Delhi

Source reference: para. 2

The Petitioner holds a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV) under the category of ‘Food/Snack with gas cylinder’ for the City-SP Zone

Source reference: para. 3

He alleged harassment by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Police

Source reference: para. 5

The MCD contended that the site in question is a designated "Non-vending zone"

Source reference: para. 6
02

Issues

1. Whether a street vendor operating in a non-vending zone can be removed without the state providing an alternative vending site

Source reference: para. 8

2. What regulatory conditions should be imposed on a vendor using a gas cylinder to ensure public safety and hygiene

Source reference: para. 10
03

Law Applied

Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which governs the relocation of street vendors

Source reference: para. 11

The Court further applied the principles established by the Supreme Court in Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. (2026), which held that the State has a duty to actively support the transition of displaced vendors to lawful vending zones to protect their right to livelihood

Source reference: para. 7-8
04

Reasoning

The Court balanced the Petitioner’s right to earn a livelihood with the regulatory necessity of maintaining non-vending zones.

Source reference: para. 7

Citing the Malkit Singh precedent, the Court reasoned that simply identifying vending zones is insufficient; authorities must provide "workable alternatives" to avoid making relocation punitive

Source reference: para. 7

The Court found that while the Petitioner was in a non-vending zone, his possession of a provisional CoV entitled him to protection from arbitrary disruption

Source reference: para. 9, 12

To address safety and public order, the Court stipulated that the Petitioner’s right to vend is not absolute and must be subject to specific constraints regarding space, hygiene, and the size of the gas cylinder used for food preparation

Source reference: para. 10
05

Holding

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Assistant Commissioner to identify an appropriate alternative location for the Petitioner within a permitted vending area of the same zone

The Court held that until such an alternative location is allotted, the Petitioner shall not be disturbed at his current site, provided he complies with six conditions: (i) use of only small/medium gas cylinders; (ii) no encroachment on pedestrian areas; (iii) maintenance of hygiene and dustbins; (iv) compliance with CoV conditions (excluding Condition 11); (v) prohibition on sub-letting or creating third-party interests; and (vi) no permanent or temporary constructions

Source reference: para. 10, 12

These directions are subject to future plans formulated by the Town Vending Committee-II

Source reference: para. 11
Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Anuj Kumar SrivastavvsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

Delhi High Court · April 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment