1. Seizure of cooking utensils and food materials from vending cart during MCD cleanliness drive. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 21985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Rajendra Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14696/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Aditya
For the Respondents: Ms. Meherunnisa A. Jaitley, Mr. Aryan Tyagi, Mr. Sunil Goyal, Ms Tanveet Kaur, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Patwari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Aditya
For the Respondents: Ms. Meherunnisa A. Jaitley, Mr. Aryan Tyagi, Mr. Sunil Goyal, Ms Tanveet Kaur, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Patwari
Street vendors have a legal obligation to cooperate with municipal authorities during sanitation and cleanliness drives; non-compliance justifies the seizure of goods, which can be recovered upon payment of a prescribed nominal fine.
Headnote:(A) Street Vending - Sanitation and Cleanliness Drives - Duty of Vendors - Vendors are obligated to cooperate with local authorities, including the Municipal Corporation and Police, during sanitation or cleanliness drives; failure to cooperate justifies the seizure of goods. (Para 10, 12)
(B) Release of Seized Goods - Payment of Fine - Seized goods may be released to the vendor upon payment of a nominal fee or fine as imposed by the municipal authority. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the seizure of the petitioner's vending goods was justified due to non-cooperation during a municipal cleanliness drive.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- article 226 (Para 2)
-
writ jurisdiction
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to livelihood
-
fundamental rights
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought return of seized goods; MCD justified seizure due to vendor non-cooperation during sanitation drive. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Vendors must cooperate with sanitation drives; failure justifies seizure; petitioner's cart was clean. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Street vendors have a duty to cooperate with municipal authorities during sanitation drives or face seizure of goods. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. Petition disposed; petitioner to pay nominal fine and obtain seized goods; undertaking of future cooperation recorded. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. What is the duty of street vendors regarding sanitation drives by municipal authorities?
Street vendors have a duty to cooperate with municipal authorities during sanitation and cleanliness drives; failure may lead to seizure of goods. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. What is the consequence of a street vendor's refusal to move during a sanitation drive?
If a vendor refuses to move during a sanitation drive, municipal officials have no option but to seize the vendor's goods. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. What fine is applicable to licensed street vendors after seizure of goods?
Licensed vendors are subject to a nominal fee imposed by the MCD, distinct from the fine for unlicensed vendors. (Para 13 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the seizure of his cooking utensils/pots and other food materials from his vending cart on 22nd September, 2026.
3. This is the second writ petition filed by the Petitioner. In the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 10296 of 2026 titled Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors , the Petitioner was permitted to vend in the following terms:-
“6. Heard ld. Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the photographs handed over by the ld. Counsel for the MCD would show that the area surrounding the vend of the Petitioner is extremely unhygienic and the Petitioner is occupying much more space than is permissible. Even the tandoor, etc. and the other utensils are not being maintained as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the CoV. The terms and conditions of the CoV have to be strictly adhered to and the same are extracted below:
“1. Vendor shall not have any other permanent or long-term vending certificate.
2. Vending certificate is non-transferable.
3. It is mandatory for the vendor to follow the vending period and zone as determined by TVC or local body.
4. Vendor shall not give his vending certificate on rent in any way.
5. Vendor shall not have any infectious disease.
6. Vendor shall have to take care of hygiene on vending place/zone and nearby area and also take care of public health.
7. Vendor shall display copy of vending certificate on his place/vending site and will produce original documents to TVC/concerned inspector whenever required.
8. Vendor/Squatter shall insure that no hindrance be caused to pedestrian and vehicular moment.
9. Vendor shall not vend/sell any harmful, dangerous and polluted items. It should also be ensured that the quality of the products sold and services provided to the public conform to the prescribed standards of public health, hygienic conditions and safety.
10. The street vendor shall not do any unauthorized/illegal activity.
11. Mobile vendors shall not stay or vend more than 30 minutes or time prescribed by the TVC at place in a vending/squatting zone.
12. Vendors will not block footpaths and will not vend on roads. Vendor should take care of space in front of vending stalls/counters on footpath for pedestrians.
13. Vending certificate can be cancelled or suspended on the basis of violations.
14. Vendor shall not build or construct any kind of permanent or temporary structure at vending site.
15. Seller shall adopt health and hygiene conditions as required by local laws and court orders.
16. Vendor have to follow all the conditions mentioned in Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019”
7. The Petitioner is clearly misleading the Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The Authorities are free to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with law. If the Petitioner is willing to vend strictly in terms of the CoV issued to him, the same shall be permitted.
8. After having seen the photographs in this case, it is clear that the area surrounding the vend of the Petitioner also requires some repair. Accordingly, after action is taken against the Petitioner, the entire footpath and road shall be repaired and photographs showing the same would be placed on record. If the maintenance of the road and the footpath in the said area are with any other agency such as the Public Works Department, etc. then the said agency shall undertake the repair drive.”
4. Vide the said order, this Court had noted that the Petitioner had misled the Court and accordingly, the Petitioner was not entitled to any relief and the Authorities were free to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, the Petitioner was permitted to vend strictly in terms of the Certificate of Vending bearing no. URI No. 11
