Delhi High Court Clarifies PM SVANidhi Scheme Does Not Convert Mobile Vendors To Fixed Locations

In a significant ruling regarding the rights and responsibilities of street vendors, the Delhi High Court has clarified that social welfare initiatives do not supersede municipal regulations. A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan held that recommendations issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs under the PM SVANidhi scheme cannot be used to alter the terms of a Certificate of Vending (CoV).

Case Background

The petition was filed by a group of street vendors operating in the Karol Bagh and Rajinder Nagar areas of Delhi. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to vend from fixed locations, citing recommendations provided by the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to facilitate their application for collateral-free loans under the PM SVANidhi scheme. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), however, maintained that the provisional certificates held by the petitioners explicitly mandate mobile vending, subject to stringent terms and conditions.

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the governmental recommendations essentially recognized fixed vending spots for the traders. They sought judicial intervention to prevent the MCD from restricting their vending activities to mobile operations.

Conversely, the MCD argued that the CoV is a legal instrument governed by the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The corporation highlighted that the petitioners failed to adhere to the standard conditions attached to their certificates, which explicitly prohibit permanent setups, unauthorized structural changes, and the obstruction of pedestrian traffic in designated no-vending zones like Ajmal Khan Road.

Legal Analysis

The Court emphasized that the nature of a vending license is exclusively determined by the issuing authority—the MCD—pursuant to the 2014 Act and the Delhi Street Vendors Scheme of 2019. The Court drew a clear legal distinction between financial facilitation and regulatory classification. It concluded that a credit-facilitating recommendation is a separate administrative action intended for micro-credit assistance and carries no weight in reclassifying a vendor's authorized operation zone or method from "mobile" to "fixed."

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the hierarchy of regulatory compliance:

  • "Any letter of recommendation that may have been issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs for the purpose of enabling the vendor to avail of loan facilities under the PM SVANidhi Scheme has no bearing on, and cannot affect, the category of vending."
  • "In the present case, the category of vending of the Petitioners is 'Others' and, under the said category, all the Petitioners/vendors are required to be mobile vendors."
  • "In the event the Petitioners are found carrying on vending activities in any No-vending zone or No-hawking ward , the concerned authorities... shall ensure their removal, so that pedestrian movement is not obstructed."

Court's Decision

The High Court dismissed the petitioners' plea to convert their status, ordering that all street vendors involved must operate as mobile entities. The ruling mandates that vendors must strictly avoid no-vending zones to ensure that ingress to and egress from Metro Stations remains unhindered. Should any vendor violate these terms, the MCD and the local police are authorized to initiate removal procedures. This decision reinforces the primacy of municipal street management laws over auxiliary benefit schemes, setting a clear precedent for urban vending regulation in the capital.