Street vendors using gas cylinders or fire are exempt from mobile vending stipulations in vending certificates.

The petitioner, a street vendor holding a Certificate of Vending (COV) for City-SP Zone, Ward-83-N, filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a court order dated 10.10.2023

That prior order directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to permit the petitioner to vend "without any let or hindrance" subject to the terms of his COV

A dispute arose regarding Stipulation No. 11 of the COV, which required the vendor to move every 30 minutes (mobile vending). The petitioner contended that because his vending involves the use of a gas cylinder/fire, he cannot be forced to be a mobile vendor

1. Whether a street vendor whose activity involves the use of a gas cylinder or fire can be mandated to follow mobile vending stipulations (moving every 30 minutes) as per the conditions of a Certificate of Vending.

2. Whether the respondents’ interference with the petitioner’s stationary vending constituted a violation of the previous court directions.

The court applied the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014

It relied on judicial precedents established by Division Benches of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 14387/2025, W.P.(C) 13399/2025, and notably W.P.(C) 7393/2025, which established the principle that vendors using gas cylinders/fire cannot be classified as mobile vendors due to the nature of their equipment, rendering mobile vending stipulations directory rather than mandatory for this specific category

The court reasoned that since identical stipulations in vending certificates had already been interpreted by Division Benches, the same interpretation must apply to the petitioner

Specifically, the court noted that the use of a gas cylinder/fire is inherently incompatible with the requirement to move every 30 minutes

Consequently, the court held that Condition No. 11 of the COV is "directory and not mandatory" for the petitioner

The court observed that the respondents' insistence on the petitioner moving was at variance with the intent of the protected vending rights previously granted

The petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to adhere to this interpretation and refrain from interfering with the petitioner’s vending activities

The court cautioned that any further non-adherence would result in "appropriate action" for willful disobedience, granting the petitioner liberty to revive proceedings if directions are not followed