S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

C.M. APPL.27040/2016 in LPA 136/2016 (for clarification of order)

C.M. APPL.30483/2016 in LPA 353/2016 (for clarification of order)

C.M. APPL.30487/2016 in LPA 256/2016 (for directions)

1. This order will dispose of several applications seeking directions on the one hand and clarifications of the previous judgment of the Court dated 18.05.2016 on the other [hereafter referred to as “the main judgment”]. The main judgment had disposed of a batch of LPAs.

2. For the purpose of this order, it is necessary to recapitulate some of the essential facts. The appellants were aggrieved by various judgments and orders of the learned Single Judges rejecting their pleas and had relied upon Sections 3 and 4 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 [hereafter “the Act”]. The Court had noticed in the final judgment that the Act was an effort to consolidate the law declared by the Supreme Court with respect to securing and regulating livelihood of urban street vendors in public spaces in cities and towns in India. The final judgment, after considering the submissions and recording analysis of various provisions of the Act as well as the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2016 (“the Scheme”) stated as follows:

“17. A combined reading of Sections 3 & 4 would show that one, a street vendor is one who is entitled - after due identification in terms of the survey carried out under Section 3 (1) - to be issued a certificate of vending by the concerned TVC subject to the conditions specified under the Act and the Rules. Two, the TVCs are to conduct survey of all existing street vendors within the area of their jurisdiction once every five years. Three, the statutory parameters or mandate which the TVC are to discharge is that existing street vendors - identified in the survey - have to be accommodated in vending zones subject to the norm that 2½ % of the total population of the ward or zone or town or city is to be taken into account, Four, the existing street vendors - irrespective of their inclusion in the survey under Section 3 (1) but who were recipient of certificate of vending before commencement of the Act - regardless of its nomenclature (in the present case in the City of Delhi which was hitherto known as tehbazari license/right), would be deemed to be street vendor in that category for the period for which such vendors are issued licenses for vending. In Delhi, tehbazari rights were settled in two phases, i.e., during the pre Gainda Ram period and thereafter pursuant to the survey and report of the G.P. Thareja Committee. Protection is afforded to street vendors in terms of Section 3 (3) who are to be accommodated till the completion of survey and issuance of licenses/certificates.

18. The expression “street vendor” broadly refers to those engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares, food items or merchandise “of everyday use” or those offering services to the general public. This definition under Section 2 (l) is wide given the fact that such street vendors are permitted to operate and carry on commercial activity in public spaces - some of them used for movement of people such as footpath, pavements sidewalks etc. The Act balances various rights and ensures that members of the public are not inconvenienced - even while ensuring that the street vendors’ rights are protected. In this respect Section 29 declares that nothing in the enactment can be construed as conferring upon the street vendors any temporary, permanent or perpetual right to carry out vending activity in the vending zone allocated. Provisions of Section 29 (1) are inapplicable to a stationary vendor if temporary lease-hold or ownership rights is conferred upon him through a lease deed by some such instrument or arrangement.”

3. The Court then noticed paras 2.1.7 to 2.1.22 of the Scheme and noted that the