Facts
The Petitioner, Ms. Sunita Devi, is a street vendor who claimed to have been vending from a specific site at Gandhi Market Chowk, West Sagarpur, for several years
Source reference: p. 2She was issued a Certificate of Vending (CoV) under the category of ‘Others’ for Ward S-31, Najafgarh Zone
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4She alleged that despite possessing a valid CoV, officials from the Delhi Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) repeatedly obstructed her business activities
Source reference: p. 5, para. 7The MCD contended that the Petitioner’s site was at the entrance of Gandhi Market and that any disturbances were likely caused by the local Market Association rather than the authorities
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9The Court observed that the Petitioner was currently operating a temporary stationary vend
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner, holding a Certificate of Vending under the category of ‘Others’, is entitled to operate from a stationary vending site
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10-112. Whether the authorities should be restrained from obstructing the Petitioner’s vending activities provided she complies with the terms of her CoV
Source reference: p. 5, para. 15Law Applied
The court applied the terms and conditions governing the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act framework, specifically regarding the categorization of vendors. It held that a Certificate of Vending (CoV) issued under the category of ‘Others’ requires the holder to operate as a "mobile vendor" rather than a stationary one
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10vending rights are subject to the non-obstruction of public access and adherence to the specific conditions prescribed in the license/CoV
Source reference: p. 5, para. 14-15Reasoning
Upon perusing the record, the Court found a discrepancy between the Petitioner's legal status and her actual practice. While her CoV categorized her under ‘Others’—which necessitates functioning as a mobile vendor—visual evidence and facts confirmed she was operating a "temporary stationary vend"
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10-11The Court reasoned that such stationary operation was contrary to the specific terms of her certificate
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11following the Petitioner's voluntary submission to convert her setup into a mobile unit, the Court determined that her right to vend could be protected if she transitioned to a mobile cart or similar form
Source reference: p. 5, para. 12-13The Court further reasoned that the Petitioner must ensure her mobile operations do not block the entrance to the Gandhi Market to balance her right to livelihood with public order
Source reference: p. 5, para. 14Holding
The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Petitioner to operate exclusively as a mobile vendor using a cart or other mobile form
The Petitioner was further ordered to ensure no obstruction is caused at the entry of Gandhi Market
Source reference: p. 5, para. 14The Court held that subject to these conditions and adherence to the terms of the CoV, the Respondents are directed not to disturb the Petitioner's vending activities
Source reference: p. 5, para. 15All pending applications were disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p. 6, para. 16Original Court PDF
Sunita DevivsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in