Surveyed street vendors are entitled to provisional certificates and protection from eviction subject to adherence to operational conditions.

The Petitioner, a street vendor operating near Moti Bagh Gurudwara at Ring Road, New Delhi, sought a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution

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

The Petitioner alleged harassment by officials from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Police and sought directions for the issuance of a Certificate of Vending (CoV)

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

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV) and protection from displacement pending formal verification

The court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to protect the Petitioner's right to vend

The decision is governed by the principles of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (though not explicitly cited), which mandates surveys of street vendors and provides protection from eviction for those surveyed during the pendency of the certification process

The Court observed that the Petitioner had documented proof of participation in the official survey through a valid acknowledgment receipt

Given the MCD’s statement that the survey process had concluded and verification was underway, the Court found it equitable to direct the issuance of a provisional CoV to ensure the Petitioner’s livelihood was not interrupted

To balance the Petitioner's right to vend with public order and safety, the Court imposed specific restrictive conditions. These included the use of only small gas cylinders, maintenance of hygiene, prevention of encroachment on pedestrian paths, and ensuring that no traffic congestion or permanent construction occurred at the site

The Court reasoned that as long as these conditions were met, the Petitioner’s vending activities should be protected until the formal scrutiny was completed

The Court held that the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from the vending site provided he adheres to six conditions: (i) use of only small gas cylinders; (ii) maintenance of cleanliness and use of a dustbin; (iii) restriction of the vend to a specific space without encroaching on pedestrian areas; (iv) avoiding junctions and leaving space for pedestrians; (v) ensuring no vehicle parking causes traffic congestion; and (vi) no erection of permanent or temporary structures