Street Vendors must strictly adhere to Certificate conditions and cannot operate in designated No-Vending Zones.

The Petitioner, a street vendor holding a Certificate of Vending (CoV) for "Food/Snacks," filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to allow him to vend at a designated site near Spark Mall, Kamla Nagar.

Although his CoV was for food items, the Petitioner conceded he was actually selling clothes.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) opposed the petition, stating that Kamla Nagar is a designated "No-Vending Zone" and "No-Squatting Zone," citing a previous prohibitory order from a Single Judge in Jawahar Nagar Block Welfare Association v. UT of Delhi.

1. Whether a street vendor can be permitted to carry out vending activities in an area designated as a ‘No-Vending’ or ‘No-Squatting’ Zone.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an alternative vending site and protection from harassment pending a decision by the Town Vending Committee (TVC).

The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specifically Section 21 regarding the authority of the Town Vending Committee to frame vending plans.

Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019, which mandates strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the CoV, including prohibitions on blocking footpaths and vending in unauthorized zones.

The precedent set in Anil Kumar v. MCD (W.P. (C) 7593/2026), which balanced the enforcement of "No-Vending Zones" with the right to livelihood.

The Court observed that while the Petitioner holds a valid CoV, the terms and conditions of such certificates must be strictly followed. Since Kamla Nagar was established as a "No-Vending Zone" by previous judicial orders, the Petitioner could not claim a right to remain at that specific spot.

Following the reasoning in the Anil Kumar case, the Court determined that the MCD must balance urban regulation with the street vendor's rights by relocating the vendor to an authorized spot rather than merely prohibiting his activity.

The Court noted that since the Petitioner was being assigned a specific spot, he would be exempted from the "mobile vendor" requirement of moving every 30 minutes, provided he maintained hygiene and did not obstruct pedestrians.

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Assistant Commissioner of the MCD to identify and communicate an alternative vending spot for the Petitioner within one week and directed that the Petitioner’s representation dated July 16, 2026, be decided by the Town Vending Committee–II within three months of its constitution.