Delhi HC Rejects Street Vendors' Bid to Claim Fixed Vending Sites Under Provisional Certificates

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court disposed of a petition by 42 street vendors seeking fixed vending sites, holding that provisional Certificates of Vending permit only mobile vending and cannot confer a right to a stationary location.

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan, disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by 42 street vendors against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The vendors held provisional Certificates of Vending and sought a mandamus directing the MCD to record exact stationary vending sites in those certificates. The Court declined, finding that provisional CoVs are issued for mobile vending only and that several petitioners had encroached upon footpaths, blocked pedestrian movement, and set up what amounted to stationary shops. The petition was disposed of with directions to the MCD to verify each petitioner's CoV status and enforce mobile-vending conditions.

The Dispute Before the Court

The 42 petitioners, represented by Mr. Vishhal Saxxenaa, claimed to hold provisional Certificates of Vending and asked the Court to direct the MCD to fill in the specific vending site in their certificates. They also sought a declaration that the MCD's failure to record the correct site was illegal and contrary to earlier court directions.

The MCD, represented by Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Standing Counsel, along with Ms. Bhawna, took a categorical position: the petitioners were at best mobile vendors and had no identified stationary site that could be allotted to them.

At the outset, the Court noted that the petition itself was thinly supported on record. Only one affidavit, that of the lead petitioner Manik Chand, had been filed. Only one provisional CoV — belonging to a Mr. Jagdamba Prasad, bearing URI No. 6062065 — had been placed before the Court. The position of the remaining 41 petitioners was unverified.

Non-Compliance With Earlier Directions

An order dated 3 February 2025 had specifically directed all petitioners to file personal affidavits affirming the contents of the petition. That order also recorded that petitioner no. 1 had died and that steps to bring his legal heirs on record were pending. The February 2025 order had simultaneously clarified that no interim order had been passed and that the pendency of the petition should not be treated as restraining the MCD from performing its duties.

By the time the matter came up for hearing on 3 August 2026, none of the petitioners had filed the personal affidavits as directed. The Court took note of this non-compliance before examining the merits of the prayer.

Photographs, Encroachment, and the Nature of Vending

The Court examined photographs placed on record and found that the petitioners were not operating as mobile vendors. Instead, they had set up stationary shops, encroached upon footpaths and walking areas, and were causing traffic congestion. The vending sites were also not being kept clean or hygienic.

This factual finding was directly at odds with the relief claimed. The petitioners wanted the Court to treat their provisional CoVs as entitling them to fixed, identifiable sites. The Court held that this could not be permitted.

What the Provisional CoV Terms Actually Say

The bench extracted the full terms and conditions attached to provisional Certificates of Vending. Several conditions were directly relevant to the dispute. Condition 11 states that a mobile vendor shall not stay more than 30 minutes in any area of the hawking or vending zone. Condition 12 prohibits blocking footpaths or conducting sales on the road. Condition 14 bars erection of any permanent or temporary structure. Condition 10 prohibits encroachment or any illegal activity.

The Court found that the petitioners, by occupying fixed positions and encroaching on public space, were in breach of multiple conditions of their own provisional CoVs. The CoVs were issued subject to the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme of 2019 of the Delhi Government, which itself was listed as condition 16.

Against this background, the Court held that “this cannot be permitted” — referring to the claim for fixed vending sites under provisional CoVs.

Directions Issued

Rather than simply dismissing the petition, the Court disposed of it with a structured set of directions aimed at regularising the situation within the framework of the provisional CoV conditions.

The MCD was directed to verify whether each of the 42 petitioners actually holds a provisional CoV. Once verified, the CoV holders are to be permitted to vend, but strictly as mobile vendors.

All provisional CoV holders were directed to abide by the existing terms and conditions of their certificates. The Court additionally imposed the following conditions on the petitioners:

• They must restrict their vending to the space from which they are currently operating and must not extend into pedestrian areas or obstruct pedestrian movement.
• They must maintain cleanliness and hygiene around the vending site and ensure a dustbin is kept near the vend.
• They must carry out vending only as mobile vendors and must not sub-let their provisional CoVs.
• No permanent or temporary construction may be erected.

The Court also made clear that any petitioner or vendor who does not hold a provisional CoV, or who fails to comply with these conditions, would be liable to be removed by the MCD.

Importantly, all the above directions were made expressly subject to any plan that the Town Vending Committee–II may formulate under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The Court stated that no vested rights shall be claimed by any of the petitioners in light of such a plan.

Order

W.P.(C) 13306/2022 was disposed of on 3 August 2026. All pending applications were also disposed of. The MCD is to carry out verification of the 42 petitioners' CoV status and enforce the conditions set out in the order. The directions remain subject to the Town Vending Committee–II's exercise of its functions under Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.