Surveyed street vendors are entitled to provisional certificates and protection from eviction pending final certification.

The Petitioner, a street vendor operating at Rao Tularam Marg, Vasant Vihar, participated in a survey conducted by the Town Vending Committee (TVC), South Zone, on July 9, 2025.

He was issued an acknowledgement receipt (URI No. 9371) but alleged harassment by officials from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Police.

The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue a Certificate of Vending (CoV) and to allow him to vend peacefully.

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

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a provisional Certificate of Vending and protection from eviction pending the formal verification process.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s right to vend is subject to specific regulatory conditions to ensure public order and hygiene.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment operates under the framework of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which mandates surveys by Town Vending Committees and the issuance of Certificates of Vending to protect vendors from arbitrary eviction.

The court applied the principle of balancing the right to livelihood with the State's power to regulate public spaces for cleanliness, pedestrian safety, and traffic management.

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s participation in the statutory survey was undisputed.

Since the MCD admitted that the survey process had concluded and verification was underway, the Court found that the Petitioner held a legitimate expectation to be protected from harassment while the administrative process for issuing the CoV was completed.

To harmonize the Petitioner's right to vend with public interest, the Court imposed stringent conditions regarding the size of equipment (gas cylinders), maintenance of hygiene, and the prevention of encroachment on pedestrian walkways or traffic junctions.

The Court reasoned that as long as these conditions are met, the vendor should not be disturbed until the provisional CoV is formally processed.

The Court held that the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from the vending site provided he adheres to six specific 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) staying clear of the Ring Road junction; (v) ensuring no vehicle parking in front of the site; and (vi) erecting no permanent or temporary constructions.

The petition was disposed of with these directions.