The main legal point established is that the provisions of the Street Vendors Act do not apply to individuals who are not regular street vendors, and the consistent stand of the authorities regarding the status of the vending zone influenced the court's decision.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Two petitioners have filed the present petition. Petitioner No.1 claims to be vending at Mansrover Building, Nehru Place, since the year 2008 and petitioner No. 2 claims to be vending at Skylark Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi since the year 2004.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that they are being consistently harassed and victimised by the official of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, despite the fact that they are regular squatters. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner’s stand removed in May, 2016.

3. Mr. Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as per Sections 3 and 4 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the Town Vending Committee is to conduct a survey of all existing vendors and after being identified under the survey, the certificate of vending is to be issued to all existing vendors and as per Section 3(3) no street vendor is to be evicted till the survey has been completed and certificate of vending is issued to all the street vendors. In support of his submission that the petitioners are regular squatters, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the challans, copies of which have been placed on record.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the prayers made in the present writ petition. It is submitted that Nehru Place area was under the jurisdiction of Delhi Development Authority till November, 2014 and thereafter, the same was transferred to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation. It is the case of the SDMC that Nehru Place District Centre has been declared as a ‘No Hawking No Vending Zone’ by the DDA and the SDMC has also consistently followed the stand of the DDA.

5. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed in LPA No. 766/2008 in the case of Manushi Sangathan, Delhi vs Delhi Development Authority &Ors. which reads as under:-

“In view of the above findings, we dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal by directing DDA to continue with the pilot project. Accordingly, 67 vendors (reduced to 67 from 68 as per the statement made by the appellant-NGO) will be permitted to hawk in the area which was demarcated by DDA prior to their removal on 19th April, 2008. However, it will be open to DDA to examine whether Nehru Place or the said area should be declared a non-hawking area and if required, demarcate vending/ non-vending areas in Nehru Place. Removal/shifting of the hawkers under the pilot project, if required, will be in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Madan (supra). The question whether Nehru Place should be declared a no hawking zone and the question of demarcating non-vending areas will be decided by the DDA after making reference to the Ward Vending Committee and on the basis of the directions issued by LPA NO.766/2008 Page No.36 the Supreme Court and in terms of the Scheme of the MCD. We may note that MCD has stated that they had already allotted alternative site to some hawkers out of the list of 67 street vendors. If any of said hawkers have already opted for the new site, they will not be entitled to the benefit of this Order. The Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.”

6. Reliance is placed on the aforesaid observation to show that the respondent has taken a consistent stand that Nehru Place area is a no hawking and no vending zone.

7. It is contended by Mr. Gupta that at that stage only 67 vendors were permitted to hawk in the area. He further submits that a Special Leave Petition was filed against the order of Division Bench passed in the LPA. Reliance is placed on the affidavit filed by the erstwhile land owning agency before the Supreme Court of India wherein it was agreed by the DDA to grant protection to 67 hawkers under the umbrella of Manushi Sangathan(supra) and 85 hawkers under various order passed by the Court. Para 5 of the