Street vendors must cooperate with sanitation drives; refusal permits seizure of goods.

The petitioner, a street vendor holding a Certificate of Vending (CoV), filed this second writ petition after the MCD seized his cooking utensils and food materials on 22 September 2026.

In an earlier petition, the Court had permitted him to vend only in strict compliance with his CoV and allowed the authorities to proceed against him in accordance with law; it had also directed that the footpath and road be repaired after action was taken.

The MCD stated that it had asked vendors to move temporarily for a cleanliness drive around Gandhi Jayanti, but seized the goods when vendors refused.

The petitioner’s cart appeared clean in the photographs before the Court.

Whether the MCD was entitled to seize the petitioner’s vending goods after he refused to move for a sanitation or cleanliness drive.

Whether the petitioner, as a licensed vendor, could recover the seized goods by paying the applicable fee.

The Court relied on its earlier order permitting the petitioner to vend subject to strict compliance with his CoV and allowing the authorities to proceed against him in accordance with law.

It stated that street vendors must keep their vending areas clean and cooperate with the MCD, police, and other authorities during sanitation or cleanliness drives; if vendors refuse to move when requested for such a drive, the MCD may seize their goods.

The Court further directed that the petitioner be treated as a licensed vendor for the purpose of the applicable seizure fee.

Although the CoV conditions quoted in the earlier order referred to the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, the Court did not separately interpret or apply a statutory provision in deciding this petition.

The Court distinguished the petitioner’s duty to maintain a clean vending area from his obligation to cooperate with a public sanitation drive.

The photographs showed that the petitioner’s cart was clean, so the Court did not find that he had breached his cleanliness obligation.

However, the MCD’s account that vendors had refused to move for the drive supported the seizure, which the Court held the MCD could undertake in those circumstances.

Since the petitioner held a CoV, the Court directed that he be charged the fee applicable to a licensed vendor.

It directed that the petitioner be treated as a licensed vendor and permitted him to obtain the seized goods upon payment of the requisite fee.

The petitioner also undertook to cooperate with the MCD and police in future cleanliness and sanitation drives; the petition was disposed of, with liberty to pursue other remedies in accordance with law.