Street vendors violating license conditions and misleading the court with deceptive evidence are disentitled to judicial protection.

The Petitioner, a street vendor operating as ‘Chauhan Ji Chole Bhature’ at Meharchand Market since 2005, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to prevent the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Police from disrupting his vending

The Petitioner held a Certificate of Vending (CoV) under the category ‘Food/Snack with gas cylinder/Fire’ and was registered with UDYAM

He alleged harassment by authorities despite his protected status under the Street Vendors Act, 2014

During proceedings, the Petitioner submitted photographs to show compliance

However, the MCD produced live video evidence during the hearing demonstrating that the Petitioner had encroached upon the entire footpath and half the road with additional tables, created traffic obstructions, and littered the area with garbage

1. Whether a street vendor is entitled to protection against relocation or disturbance under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, when found in violation of the terms and conditions of their Certificate of Vending (CoV)

2. Whether the Petitioner’s submission of misleading or "dressed-up" evidence disqualifies them from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court applied the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which regulates the rights and obligations of vendors

It emphasized the conditions inherent in a Certificate of Vending (CoV), specifically that a mobile vendor cannot operate as a stationary restaurant or encroach upon public pathways

Furthermore, the Court relied on the equitable principle of "Clean Hands," asserting that a petitioner seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution must present the facts honestly and without deception

The Court found a "stark difference" between the photographs submitted by the Petitioner and the live video evidence produced by the MCD

The video revealed that the Petitioner had effectively established a small restaurant on the footpath, significantly exceeding the scope of his CoV

The Court noted that the Petitioner had deliberately removed side tables to take "dressed-up" photos for the litigation while continuing to obstruct vehicular and pedestrian traffic in reality

The Court reasoned that the right to vend is not absolute and is contingent upon maintaining cleanliness and adhering to the non-encroachment conditions of the CoV

Because the Petitioner was in gross violation of these conditions and had attempted to mislead the Court with deceptive imagery, he was deemed ineligible for any protective injunction

The Court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the Petitioner, payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, for presenting "dressed-up" images

The MCD was granted liberty to take action against the Petitioner in accordance with the law

The video evidence was ordered to be tagged with the electronic record of the case