Back
Imposes Twenty Five Thousand Rupee Costs On Street Vendor For Misleading Photos
In a firm stance against the submission of , the has imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on a street vendor seeking protection from alleged harassment. A comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan issued the order, emphasizing that litigants have a mandatory duty to present the accurate factual status of their claims before the court.
The Dispute Over Vending Rights
The petitioner, Vinod Ram, who holds a for food and snacks near the Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, moved the High Court under . He alleged that authorities were harassing him and sought a directive to vend peacefully, while also requesting his license be converted to that of a ''.
To support his plea, the petitioner submitted photographs of his vending unit. However, the () countered this with photographic evidence showing an extensive commercial setup—complete with tables and chairs—that severely obstructed the public footpath.
Court’s Scrutiny of Misleading Evidence
Upon reviewing the images submitted by the civic body, the Court expressed its stern displeasure regarding the petitioner's attempt to camouflage the extent of his . The Bench noted that the petitioner’s actions were in clear violation of his terms.
Highlighting the gravity of his misrepresentation, the Court observed:
"The Petitioner has obviously filed misleading photographs on record in order to hide the true factual position from the Court. The above photographs leave no manner of doubt that the Petitioner is in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the CoV. Thus, the action taken by the authorities cannot be termed as harassment by any stretch of imagination."
Balancing Livelihood and Order
Despite the finding of bad faith, the Court adopted a humanitarian approach, acknowledging the petitioner’s economic vulnerability. To safeguard his livelihood, the justices allowed him to continue operating provided he adheres to strict guidelines.
The Court’s mandate requires the petitioner to: * Remove all unauthorized encroachments, including tables and chairs, within 24 hours. * Limit his operations to a specific, non-obstructive space. * Utilize only small or medium-sized gas cylinders as per safety requirements. * Ensure rigorous maintenance of cleanliness with mandatory onsite dustbins.
The petitioner is strictly prohibited from sub-letting his spot or erecting any permanent or temporary structures. Non-compliance, as noted in the judgment, could jeopardize his future vending rights.
Judicial Accountability
As a condition of this order, the petitioner must deposit ₹25,000 with the Legal Services Committee within two weeks. Officials from the are scheduled to inspect the site on , to verify compliance. This ruling serves as a poignant reminder that while the law protects the livelihoods of street vendors, it remains intolerant of those who attempt to distort to facilitate public .
