Delhi High Court: A contempt petition was filed alleging wilful disobedience of common orders. A Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna*, J., while considering the judgment of the Division Judge Bench, wherein, it interpreted Street Vendors Act, 2014 and gave binding directions, found no fault in the NDMC’s action in removal of the petitioners’ goods from no-vending area. Hence, the present petition was dismissed and contempt notice was discharged.
Background
The present contempt petition was filed alleging wilful disobedience of common orders dated 30-5-2016 and 1-8-2016, wherein, the Judgment interpreted the Street Vendor (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short ‘Street Vendors Act, 2014) and Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2016. The judgment established that pre-existing right holders (defined as “Street vendors” or “Tehbazari” licensees) cannot be disturbed unless the Town Vending Committee (For short ‘TVC’) determines that their occupied space violates the specific guidelines of the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2016. Petitioners conceded that they do not possess Tehbazari licenses. Instead, they claimed to hold “pre-existing rights” because their names were included in a list of 628 unauthorized squatters prepared by the New Delhi Municipal Council (‘NDMC’ for short), to facilitate the allotment of vending spaces on a lottery basis.
Decision and Analysis
The Court noted that aforesaid list in which petitioners were claiming pre-existing rights, was only an unauthorized squatters’ list, for the purpose of allotment of Tehbazari rights and not for granting Tehbazari licences to 628 persons as mentioned.
The Court observed in New Delhi Traders Assn. v. NDMC, WP(C) No. 11669 of 2021, wherein, the Delhi High Court mentioned that Connaught place and Connaught Circus area were identified as no vending/ no hawking zones by NDMC.
The Court observed in Vyapari Kalyan Mandal Main Pushpa v. South Delhi Municipal Corpn., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8962, wherein, it stated that the vendors were only granted interim protection until the registration and demarcation of vending/hawking zones. And it did not agree with Gainda Ram v. MCD, (2010) 10 SCC 715 and Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai, (2009) 17 SCC 151, the ruling effectively nullified the previous classification of non-vending zones, gave street vendors a blanket clearance to set up at any place found fit by them, while ignoring the rights of other stakeholders.
The Court also noted Section 12 of the Street Vendor Act 2014 and held that the NDMC declared the Connaught place area as a ‘No Vending/No Squatting Zone’, which is undisputedly continuing even today, the petitioners possess no legal right to conduct vending activities within the specific jurisdiction. The Court also had taken a reference of Clauses 1.1.20 and 2.1.6 (g) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019 (Delhi Street Vendors Scheme, 2019) which clearly demonstrate that no vender shall carry out any vending in non-vending zones and the issue of an acknowledgment receipt of surveying of a street vendor shall not confer right upon them to vend or squat. The permission or certificate will be decided by the TVC with the consultation of the local body.
The Court also considered a receipt dated 2-3-2009 issued by NDMC in the name of the petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 1404/2022, relied upon by the petitioners to demonstrate a pre-existing right. The Court noted the submission of NDMC that the receipt was a computer-generated one, obtainable by any person on depositing fees at the counter, and that the clerical staff issuing such receipts neither checked any documents nor had any means to verify the entitlement of the depositor. The Court held that this receipt, therefore, did not establish any pre-existing right in favour of the petitioners.
While considering the judgment of the Division Bench, the Court held that no fault was found in the action of the NDMC in removal of the goods of petitioners from the ‘No-vending’ as petitioners possess no legal right to conduct vending activities therein specific jurisdiction. The present petition was accordingly, dismissed, the contempt notice was discharged and the pending applications were disposed of.
[Mahavir Jain v. Amit Yadav, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6494, decided on 21-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: N.K. Sahoo
For the Respondent: Vivek Narayan Sharma, Ankita Sarangi, Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha, Ajay Kumar Narula and Palak Kaushik
