The Delhi High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to identify an alternative vending space for a street vendor within two weeks, subject to specific conditions, after finding that his current site on a covered drain posed safety hazards. The judgment reinforces the balance between protecting livelihoods under the Street Vendors Act and ensuring public safety, setting a procedural template for similar disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajender, holds a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV) under the category ‘Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire’ and vends at the Open Space, Opposite Gali No. 18, Jagdamba Road Tughlakabad Extn, Central Zone, Ward-S-82, New Delhi. He alleges that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has disturbed his vending activities and, following a fire in the area, removed his vend. He made a representation dated 7 September 2026 seeking permission to vend peacefully at the site.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s provisional CoV bears URI No. 2643292.
- The vending site is described as an open space opposite Gali No. 18, Jagdamba Road, Tughlakabad Extn.
- On 7 September 2026, the petitioner submitted a representation to the MCD regarding the disturbance of his vend.
- The MCD’s standing counsel contended that the petitioner was vending on a drain covered by slabs, not on a cart, and was using a gas cylinder that was too large, posing safety risks.
- Photographs of the vend taken on the morning of the hearing were placed on record, showing the vend on a covered drain.
- The court noted similar orders passed in three other matters: Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. (order dated 2 February 2026), Mohd Badruddin v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. (order dated 8 January 2026), and Rihana v. MCD & Ors. (order dated 5 February 2026).
Procedural History
- 7 September 2026: Petitioner’s representation dated 7 September 2026.
- 10 September 2026: Date of judgment; hearing conducted in hybrid mode.
- 17 September 2026 at 11.30 am: Directed date for the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to identify an alternative vending space.
Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s submissions: Through counsel Mr. Aditya, the petitioner urged that he be allowed to vend peacefully at the existing site, as similarly situated vendors had been permitted to do under recent orders of this Court.
Respondent’s submissions: Through standing counsel Mr. Harshit (for MCD) and panel counsel Ms. Vaishali Gupta and Ms. Rashi Aggarwal (for R-3), the respondents argued that the vend was located on a covered drain, was not on a cart, and involved an oversized gas cylinder, rendering it unsafe for the petitioner and customers.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought directions to the respondents to allow him to vend peacefully from the vending site, alternatively to provide an alternative suitable location, and to ensure that his provisional CoV conditions were respected.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner could be permitted to continue vending at the existing site on a covered drain, or whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was obligated to identify an alternative vending space within a reasonable time, while ensuring compliance with the conditions of the provisional Certificate of Vending under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel Mr. Aditya relied on the recent orders of this Court in Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. (2 February 2026), Mohd Badruddin v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. (8 January 2026) and Rihana v. MCD & Ors. (5 February 2026), arguing that similarly placed vendors had been allowed to continue vending subject to certain conditions. He submitted that the petitioner’s provisional CoV entitled him to vend and that the MCD had not shown any legal basis to disturb his livelihood without providing an alternative.
For the Respondent
Standing counsel Mr. Harshit, assisted by Ms. Vaishali Gupta and Ms. Rashi Aggarwal, contended that the petitioner’s vend was situated on a drain covered by slabs, which was inherently unsafe. He emphasized that the petitioner was not using a cart and was employing a gas cylinder that exceeded the permissible size, thereby creating a risk of obstruction and hazard. The respondents urged the Court to deny permission to vend at the site and to insist on compliance with safety norms before any relocation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the petitioner possessed a valid provisional CoV under the Street Vendors Act, which entitled him to vend subject to its conditions. It observed that the photographs on record clearly showed the vend located on a covered drain, a situation that posed safety concerns for both the vendor and the public. The Court then referred to the three recent orders where vendors in similar categories had been directed to shift to alternative spaces while adhering to specific safeguards.
"The Assistant Commissioner of the concerned area shall identify an alternative space for the Petitioner where he can vend within a period of two weeks. However, Petitioner shall ensure that the vend is not placed on the floor but is on a cart."
The Court held that, in the interest of public safety and the orderly regulation of street vending, it was appropriate to direct the MCD to identify an alternative vending location within two weeks. It imposed a series of conditions to ensure that the vend would not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic, would maintain hygiene, would use only a small gas cylinder for heating food, and would not involve any permanent or temporary construction. The Court also clarified that certain conditions of the provisional CoV (specifically Condition No. 11) would not apply, while all other conditions remained binding. Finally, it directed the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner on 17 September 2026 at 11.30 am to effectuate the identification of the alternative space.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in part. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to identify an alternative vending space for the petitioner within two weeks, specifically by 17 September 2026 at 11.30 am. The petitioner must vend only from a cart, use a small gas cylinder for heating food and snacks, maintain cleanliness with a dustbin near the vend, avoid obstructing pedestrian or vehicular traffic, and refrain from erecting any permanent or temporary construction. All other conditions of the provisional Certificate of Vending remain applicable, except Condition No. 11. The petition is disposed of in these terms.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alternative Space as a Safety Remedy
When a vending site is found to be unsafe - such as being located on a covered drain or lacking a cart - the Court may direct the municipal authority to identify an alternative location within a defined period, rather than outright prohibiting the vendor’s livelihood. This approach balances the right to livelihood under Article 21 with the State’s duty to ensure public safety.
Conditional Continuation of Vending
Even after relocation, vendors must comply with specific operational conditions: using a cart, restricting gas cylinder size, maintaining hygiene, and avoiding obstructions. These conditions are not punitive but are designed to mitigate risks while allowing the vendor to continue earning livelihood.
Reliance on Recent Co-ordinated Orders
The judgment shows that Courts are increasingly relying on recent, fact-similar orders to shape directions. Practitioners should cite such contemporaneous judgments when seeking similar relief, as they demonstrate a consistent application of the Street Vendors Act’s procedural safeguards.
