Whether a street vendor complied with cleanliness conditions is a factual issue unsuitable for writ adjudication.

The petitioner filed a second writ petition under Article 226 after MCD officials seized his vending goods on 22 September 2026 and recovered ₹3,700, which he challenged as unauthorised and arbitrary.

In an earlier writ petition, the Court had permitted him to vend subject to conditions, including maintaining cleanliness, keeping a dustbin, avoiding obstruction, and complying with the other conditions of his provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV).

MCD stated that the petitioner had refused to move during a cleanliness drive and had failed to maintain cleanliness; it seized his goods and released them on 24 September 2026 after imposing a fine.

The petitioner argued that the fine had been imposed under the wrong category because he was a licensed vendor.

Whether the seizure of the petitioner’s goods and recovery of ₹3,700 were unauthorised or illegal

Whether the Court could determine in this writ petition whether the petitioner had failed to maintain cleanliness and thereby breached the conditions governing his vending

Article 226 of the Constitution provides for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including Section 21, was relevant insofar as the earlier directions were subject to any plan framed by the Town Vending Committee-II under that provision.

The earlier order required the petitioner to comply with specified conditions, including maintaining cleanliness and avoiding obstruction, while permitting him to vend.

The Court also observed that vendors are expected to cooperate with MCD cleanliness and sanitation drives, and that disputes over whether cleanliness was maintained involve questions of fact.

The Court noted MCD’s account that the petitioner had refused to move during a cleanliness drive and had not maintained cleanliness, but did not determine whether those allegations were established.

It held that whether the petitioner had maintained cleanliness was a factual issue that could not be examined in this writ petition.

The Court also stressed that vendors should cooperate with sanitation drives, while MCD should work with vendors rather than harass or mistreat them.

It left the petitioner free to institute a civil suit, if so advised, and pursue remedies in accordance with law.