1. Petition seeking vending certificate and peaceful vending from designated site for a disabled street vendor. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Sudhir Kumar Jha – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Town Vending Committee – Respondent
W.P.(C) 10020/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya
For the Respondents: Sidhant Nath, Bhavishya Makhija, Aman Khan, Parmeshvar Dayal, Dharampal, Varun Chugh, Shagun Shahi Chugh, Ayushi Agarwal, Surendra Kumar, Akash Chandrayan, Vaishali Gupta, Rashi Aggarwal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya
For the Respondents: Sidhant Nath, Bhavishya Makhija, Aman Khan, Parmeshvar Dayal, Dharampal, Varun Chugh, Shagun Shahi Chugh, Ayushi Agarwal, Surendra Kumar, Akash Chandrayan, Vaishali Gupta, Rashi Aggarwal
Persons with severe locomotor disabilities are entitled to 'reasonable accommodation' under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which precludes them from being forced to operate as mobile vendors and entitles them to stationary vending sites.
Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Reasonable Accommodation - A street vendor with severe locomotor disability cannot be mandated to operate as a mobile vendor; the state is required to provide reasonable accommodation, which includes permitting the vendor to operate from a stationary site. (Para 16, 17, 18)
(B) Street Vending Regulation - Preference for Disabled Persons - Under the GNCTD Street Vendors Scheme 2015, a preference of 3% of vending sites in all categories is reserved for persons with disabilities upon production of a valid disability certificate. (Para 15)
Issues: Whether a street vendor with 90% locomotor disability can be required to operate as a mobile vendor or is entitled to a stationary vending site as a reasonable accommodation under the law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. MCD unable to allot fixed site; Delhi Police objected as area was non-vending zone under NHAI. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Reasonable accommodation under RPwD Act applies to disabled vendors; stationary vending may be required. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Disabled vendors cannot be forced to be mobile; reasonable accommodation requires considering stationary vending. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Permitted to vend as stationary vendor at site identified by MCD; subject to TVC-II policy. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 )
6. Does the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 require reasonable accommodation for disabled street vendors?
Yes, authorities must provide reasonable accommodation including possibly stationary vending for those with locomotor disability. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. Can a disabled street vendor with 90% locomotor disability be compelled to operate as a mobile vendor?
No, such a vendor does not have the physical capability to operate as a mobile vendor and cannot be compelled. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. What role does the Town Vending Committee (TVC) play in accommodating disabled vendors?
TVC-II must take a policy decision on reasonable accommodations for specially abled vendors under the RPwD Act. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to issue the Certificate of Vending to Petitioner and allow the Petitioner to peacefully vend from the vending site i.e., On the Footpath, Noida Link Road, Opposite Akshardham Metro Station, Shahdara South Zone, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the vending site’).
3. The Petitioner is also seeking release of the goods which were seized by the Traffic Police officials.
4. On 23rd July, 2026, the Court, while noting that the Petitioner is a 90% disabled street vendor and is stated to be vending from the vending site for several years, had made the following observations:
“7. A perusal of the photograph makes it clear that the Petitioner is a disabled person.
8. However, he is also not maintaining cleanliness around the vend. This would be contrary to terms and conditions of the CoV.
9. In any event considering his disability and taking a compassionate and empathetic view, the concerned officials of the Delhi police are directed to return his goods immediately, within 24 hours.
10. In addition, ld. Counsel for the MCD shall obtain instructions as to the location where the Petitioner can carry on vending, in a manner that does not obstruct the entry and exit of the Akshardham metro station.”
5. As stated above, the Petitioner is suffering from 90% locomotive disability. It is his case that he is presently not being allowed to peacefully vend from the vending site.
6. As directed by the Court on 23rd July, 2026, the case of the Petitioner was to be dealt with compassionately and a direction was issued to the ld. Counsel for the MCD to obtain instruction as to the location where the Petitioner carried out vending.
7. Today, ld. Counsel for the MCD – Mr. Sidhant Nath submits that the MCD is unable to allot a fixed site to the Petitioner, as he has to be a mobile vendor.
8. Moreover, it is submitted that the Delhi Police has also had an objection with Petitioner vending at the concerned area as the vend of the Petitioner is presently located in the area which falls under the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and the area is a non-vending zone. It is also submitted by ld. Counsel that there is a heavy traffic movement on the said road.
9. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, has identified a vend outside the Commonwealth Games Village Sports Complex where earlier, a government vend used to run.
10. Heard. It is not up to this Court to decide as to where the vend of the Petitioner should be located.
11. The TVC-II elections have now been concluded and the list of nominated/ designated members is awaited to be confirmed.
12. Hence, once TVC-II is constituted, they can take a decision on how vendors who have disabilities are to be treated.
13. Recently, this Court has dealt with another matter where the Petitioner was visually disabled and had filed a petition seeking directions to be permitted to peacefully vend at his vending site. In the said case, being W.P. (C) 11073/2024 titled Bharat Bhushan v. MCD & Anr., the Court directed TVC-II to consider the issue pertaining to providing reasonable accommodations to specially abled persons in accordance with Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Relevant portion of the order dated 31st July, 2026 passed in Bharat Bhushan (supra) is as under:
“5. Considering the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, let MCD take a decision as to whether persons who have visual impairment, as is the case of the Petitioner herein, or some other disabilities would be required to be given reasonable accommodation.
6. This would be a Policy decision to be taken by the MCD, bearing in mind the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as also the judgment of the Supreme Court requiring the reasonable accommodation to be given to persons with disabilities in Rajive
