Petitioners Directed to Operate as Mobile Vendors, Adhere to Conditions of Provisional Certificates of Vending
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of 42 petitioners seeking fixed vending sites under provisional Certificates of Vending (CoVs). The court, comprising Justices Ms. Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan, emphasized that provisional CoVs do not confer rights to fixed vending locations. Instead, the court directed the petitioners to operate strictly as mobile vendors, adhering to the terms and conditions associated with their CoVs.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Mr. Vishhal Saxxenaa, argued that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) failed to indicate specific vending sites in their CoVs, thus causing injustice. However, the MCD, represented by Standing Counsel Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, contended that the petitioners were encroaching upon footpaths and pedestrian areas, leading to traffic congestion.
Photographic evidence presented in court demonstrated that the petitioners were not operating as mobile vendors but had set up stationary shops, thereby violating the conditions of their CoVs. The court reiterated that provisional CoVs come with specific terms that vendors must adhere to, including maintaining cleanliness, not obstructing pedestrian pathways, and not constructing permanent or temporary structures.
The court directed the MCD to verify the provisional CoVs of all 42 petitioners. Upon confirmation, the petitioners will be permitted to vend as mobile vendors, provided they comply with all stipulated conditions. These include maintaining cleanliness, ensuring pedestrian pathways are unobstructed, and not sub-letting their vending rights.
Furthermore, the court clarified that any petitioner without a valid provisional CoV or found in violation of the conditions would be subject to removal by the MCD. The court’s directions are also subject to any future plans proposed by the Town Vending Committee under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
The judgment underscores the court’s commitment to balancing the rights of street vendors with the need to maintain public order and cleanliness. The decision provides clarity on the limitations of provisional vending certificates, reinforcing the importance of compliance with regulatory norms.
Bottom Line:
Street vending - Petitioners claiming fixed vending sites under provisional Certificates of Vending (CoVs) - Petitioners found to have encroached upon footpaths and pedestrian areas, causing traffic congestion - Held, provisional CoVs do not confer rights to fixed vending sites - Petitioners directed to vend as mobile vendors while adhering to terms and conditions of CoVs.
Statutory provision(s): Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, Section 21
Manik Chand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2955312
