Surveyed street vendors are entitled to provisional certificates and protection from eviction pending final verification of documents.

The Petitioner, a street vendor operating near the Ring Road at Moti Bagh, New Delhi, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Respondents to issue a Certificate of Vending (CoV) and to allow him to vend peacefully.

The Petitioner claimed to have participated in a survey conducted by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation on August 4, 2025, and was issued an acknowledgment receipt (URI No. 13785).

He alleged harassment by officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Police, stating that a provisional CoV had not yet been issued.

The MCD submitted that the survey concluded in January 2026 and that provisional CoVs would be issued after due scrutiny and verification of documents.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a provisional Certificate of Vending and protection from displacement pending the verification of survey documents.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to protect the Petitioner’s right to livelihood.

The Court applied the administrative principles governing street vending, which mandate that once a vendor participates in a statutory survey and receives an acknowledgment, they are entitled to consideration for a Certificate of Vending (CoV) and protection from arbitrary eviction during the processing period, subject to compliance with public health and safety regulations.

The Court noted that the Petitioner had successfully participated in the survey and possessed a valid acknowledgment receipt.

While acknowledging the MCD's right to scrutinize and verify documents before issuing a final CoV, the Court determined that the Petitioner should not be deprived of his livelihood in the interim.

To balance the Petitioner's right to vend with public interest—specifically regarding traffic flow, pedestrian safety, and hygiene—the Court imposed six specific conditions.

These included limits on the size of gas cylinders, a mandate for cleanliness/dustbins, restrictions on encroaching upon pedestrian paths or junctions (Ring Road), and a prohibition on permanent constructions or vehicular parking in front of the site.

The Court reasoned that adherence to these conditions justified the protection of the vendor from being disturbed by authorities.

The Court held that as long as the Petitioner adheres to the six specific conditions regarding space, hygiene, and traffic management, he shall not be disturbed from vending at the site.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.