Back
Rules That Provisional Certificate of Vending Holders Cannot Claim Fixed Vending Sites
A division bench of the has firmly rejected the claim of 42 street vendors who sought to convert their provisional vending certificates into rights over .
In a judgment delivered on , the bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan held that a does not entitle a vendor to a specific, identified site. The court instead reaffirmed that such certificates authorise only , subject to strict conditions.
The Confrontation at the Court
The petition, filed under , was brought by 42 individuals who claimed to hold provisional CoVs issued by the . Their primary prayer was a direction to the MCD to “indicate the exact site of the petitioners in the column of site where vending is permitted.” In other words, they wanted the MCD to assign them permanent, fixed locations to operate their stalls.
However, the MCD maintained that these vendors were, at best, mobile vendors and had no entitlement to any identified stationary site. The court noted that the petitioners’ own photographs showed they had set up stationary shops, encroaching upon footpaths and creating traffic congestion.
Only One Affidavit Among Forty-Two
A critical procedural lapse also caught the court’s attention. Despite a specific order dated , directing all 42 petitioners to file affirming the contents of the petition, none were filed. Only one affidavit—from the first petitioner, Manik Chand—was on record, along with a single provisional CoV belonging to Jagdamba Prasad.
The court observed: “However, no affidavits have been filed in this regard till date.” This failure undermined the petitioners’ collective claim.
No Right to Fixed Sites Under Provisional CoVs
The core of the ruling turned on the interpretation of the provisional CoV and its attached terms and conditions. The court extracted and relied upon 16 conditions that all CoV holders must abide by. These included restrictions on staying more than 30 minutes in any area, prohibitions on encroaching footpaths or erecting permanent structures, and obligations to maintain cleanliness.
The bench concluded that allowing the vendors to claim fixed sites would contradict the very nature of a provisional certificate. “In the opinion of this Court, this cannot be permitted,” the judges stated. They added: “The photographs which are placed on record would also show that the Petitioners are not vending as mobile vendors but stationary shops and have encroached upon the footpath, the walking area and also creating traffic congestion in the area.”
MCD Directed to Verify Credentials
While disposing of the petition, the court stopped short of granting the petitioners’ prayer. Instead, it directed the MCD to first verify whether all 42 individuals actually possess valid provisional CoVs. Upon verification, those found holding valid certificates shall be permitted to vend as mobile vendors , not from fixed sites.
The court also issued a set of compliance conditions to be observed by the vendors: - They must restrict themselves to a particular space without extending into pedestrian areas. - They are obliged to maintain cleanliness and hygiene around their vending area and ensure the presence of a dustbin. - They may not the provisional CoV. - No permanent or temporary construction shall be erected.
Any vendor who does not hold a provisional CoV or fails to comply with the conditions is liable to be removed by the MCD.
Future Plans and No
Importantly, the court clarified that its directions are subject to any future plan the may formulate under . No are created by the present order, the bench emphasised.
The case, , thus stands disposed, with the court reinforcing the distinction between provisional and permanent fixed stalls under the law.
