Back
Draws Line at Nehru Place: No Mercy for Unauthorized Vendors
In a decisive ruling on , a of the comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the latest by street vendors Bachchu Singh and Rama Kant . The petitioners sought protection from eviction from sites opposite Mansarovar Building in Nehru Place Commercial Complex. The court not only rejected their plea but imposed Rs 10,000 costs and directed the to immediately remove all unauthorized vendors, underscoring the area's status as a strict no-vending zone.
This marks the third failed attempt by these vendors to secure hawking rights in the bustling commercial hub, amid growing concerns over safety and urban order.
A Trail of Rejected Pleas Spanning a Decade
The saga began in when the petitioners were evicted from Nehru Place, prompting their first , . They claimed vending since 2004 and invoked protections from earlier cases like , where 67 vendors under and 85 others received limited safeguards.
Nehru Place was flagged as a potential no-vending zone as early as 2009 minutes, confirmed post a 2011 order in . That order upheld a pilot project for protected vendors but left room for declaring the area off-limits, with no coercive action only for listed hawkers.
The 2017 petition was dismissed because the petitioners' names absent from Thareja (1992) and Chopra (1996) committees' lists—key rosters from directives. Appeals to the in were dismissed in , vacating .
Undeterred, a second petition met the same fate on . Even after the permitted withdrawal with liberty to approach authorities in , the current followed—and failed.
A fire at Nehru Place, addressed in the court's , highlighted how unauthorized vending fueled congestion and hazards, reinforcing the no-hawking policy.
Vendors' Familiar Tune vs Authorities' Ironclad Defense
The petitioners argued parity with vendors, insisting on protection under the . Their counsel claimed long-term presence and victimization by MCD and police, leveraging liberty to re-approach courts.
MCD countered with the litigation history: repeated dismissals, absence from protected lists, and Nehru Place's official no-vending status since 2009 decisions. They stressed only court-protected vendors could operate, amid safety risks from encroachments.
Unpacking the Precedents: Protected Few, Not All
The bench meticulously traced judicial history. The 2009 order allowed a pilot for 67 vendors but empowered to ban hawking. affirmations in 2011 barred coercion only for listed parties, not newcomers.
Prior benches ruled the petitioners non-qualifying "regular" vendors, absent from Thareja/Chopra lists or court protections. The case amplified risks, directing daily enforcement against non-protected hawkers.
News reports echoed this, noting the fire incident's role in exposing
"severe safety and security concerns"
from returning vendors post-drives.
Court's Unyielding Stance in Key Quotes
-
"It is a matter of which
can be taken that Nehru Place has been declared as a No-vending and No-hawking zone."
-
"The Petitioners do not have any rights to be vending in the Nehru Place area and the same has been repeatedly held by
of this Court..."
-
"Permitting of hawkers and vendors to vend in the Nehru Place area has raised severe safety and security concerns for the entire commercial complex itself."
-
"In fact, it is inexplicable as to how the Petitioners are being permitted to vend in the Nehru Place area."
-
"Accordingly, the MCD shall take immediate action and ensure that no unauthorized vendors are allowed to vend in the Nehru Place area."
Eviction Orders and Costs: A Clear Mandate for Compliance
The petition stands dismissed, with Rs 10,000 costs payable to the Legal Services Committee. MCD must enforce removal, with the matter listed for compliance on .
This ruling solidifies Nehru Place's no-vending status, prioritizing public safety over unlisted claims. It signals stricter enforcement against repeat litigants, potentially deterring similar encroachments in commercial zones while urging protected vendors toward relocation as per past directives.
