Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 22122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Federation of Nehru Place Associations – Appellant
Versus
Gyanesh Bharti – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 703/2021|W.P.(C) 6823/2017|W.P.(C) 7307/2017|W.P.(C) 7405/2017|W.P.(C) 9611/2017|W.P.(C) 10880/2020|W.P.(C) 6221/2022|W.P.(C) 2183/2026|W.P.(C) 8430/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pranav Proothi, Manasi Chatpalliwar, Anshveer Singh Nalwa, Anany Singh, Amit Singh Chaddha, Indira Unninayar, Anamika Ghai, Kirti Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Sanjay Poddar, Puja Kalra, Viren Singh, Govind Kumar, Apurv Kumar, Anshika Singh, Ankit Kakkar, Sangeeta Chandra, Bhawna, Anubhav Gupta, Rashi Aggarwal, Sagar Khanna, Mukesh Gupta, Sneha Roy, Madhu Yadav, Lalltaksh Joshi, Minu Kumari, T.P. Singh, Aakansha Kaul, Aman Sohani, Ashima Chopra, Saptarishi Sharma, Amit Tiwari, Ayushi Srivastava, Arpan Narwal, Ayush Tanwar, Kushagra Malik, Arjun Pant, Mohd. Faisal, Mahika Bisht, Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Shivani Verma, Renu, Akanksha Priya, Ajay Kumar, Kailash Chand, Ashok Kumar, Sonu Nain, Rushikanta Dash, Shubham Dubey, Abhishek Saket, Manish Madhukar, Abhigyan, Reya Paul, Nidhi Singh, Amruta Padhi, Vaishali Gupta, Khusboo Kohli, Tushar Sannu, Parvin Bansal, Vaibhav Tripathi, G.M. Akhtar, Saba M. Zaidi
The court confirmed Nehru Place as a 'No-hawking zone' due to fire safety and congestion, while directing the relocation of recognized vendors to a designated site, emphasizing the State's duty to support vendors' transition to maintain their livelihood.
Headnote:(A) Street Vending - No-Hawking Zone - Declaration of Nehru Place District Centre as a ‘No-hawking’ and ‘No-vending’ zone is confirmed based on public safety, fire hazards, and previous judicial findings. (Para 23, 44)
(B) Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 - Eviction and Relocation - While Section 3(3) protects vendors from eviction until survey completion, this protection is balanced against public safety and the duty of the State to provide workable alternative vending zones. (Para 30-33, 41)
(C) Right to Livelihood - State's Duty - The State has a responsibility to actively support the transition of displaced vendors to designated vending zones to ensure minimum disruption to their livelihood. (Para 40-41)
Issues: Whether the Nehru Place District Centre can be declared a no-hawking zone and how to balance the livelihood rights of street vendors with public safety and urban order.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These are various matters relating to vending and hawking in the Nehru Place area. Since several years, the Nehru Place area has become a severe bone of contention for hawkers and vendors.
3. CONT. CAS(C) 703/2021 has been filed by Federation of Nehru Place Association alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued vide order dated 19th September, 2017 in W.P.(C) 6823/ 2017.
4. W.P.(C) 6823/2017 has been filed by 23 vendors, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to peacefully vend from their vending sites.
5. W.P.(C) 7307/2017 has been filed by 2 vendors, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to peacefully vend from their vending sites.
6. W.P.(C) 7405/2017 has been filed by 4 vendors, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to peacefully vend from their vending sites.
7. W.P.(C) 9611/2017 has been filed by Ms. Sundri Devi, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to peacefully vend from her vending site.
8. W.P.(C) 10880/ 2020 has been filed by 15 vendors, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to peacefully vend from their vending sites.
9. W.P. (C) 6221/2022 has been filed by Kalkaji Civil Society through its Chairman, Sh. Khavinder Singh Captain, inter alia, seeking the following prayer:
“i) Issue a writ nature of Mandamus to direct the Respondent No.2 not to shift 67 hawkers of the "Manushi Sangathan" to area opposite Aggarwal Dharamshala, near Govindpuri metro station, New Delhi- 110019 or permit them to hawk there as was granted by Respondent No. 2 by way of the Administrative Order dated 13.01.2022, bearing no. AC/CNZ/202211204 passed by the Respondent No. 2 not permit the vendors/hawkers to hawk at area Opposite Aggarwal Dharamshala, Near Govindpuri Metro Station, New Delhi- 110019.”
10. W.P.(C) 2183/2026 has been filed by Manushi Sangathan, which is an organisation that espouses causes for the urban poor such as street vendors and cycle rickshaw pullers, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ for protection of Fundamental Rights and for declaring the Nehru Place District Centre as a ‘Vending Zone’.
11. One of the first judgments passed by a Division Bench of this Court regarding the Nehru Place area was Manushi Sangathan v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., 2009 (110) DRJ 87 (DB) wherein, the Court had in paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 recognized the rights of vendors and had observed that 67 vendors would be permitted to vend in the Nehru Place area. The said judgment was passed following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudhir Madan and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. , 2007 (8) SCALE 334. The relevant portions of the decision in Manushi Sangathan (Supra) is set out below:-
“38. The National Policy on Urban Street Vendors incorporates and proceeds on the basis of the guidelines and directions issued by the Supreme Court. Additional safeguards and protection to vendors and regulations have been provided. Exercise of discretion is regulated by clear guidelines and principles to be followed. We have also quoted above directions of the Supreme Court in the Order dated 6th February, 2007 in Sudhir Madan and others v. MCD and others making reference to the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors and holding, inter alia, that an existing allottee can be shifted from one site to another but consistent with the said Policy which provides that eviction should be avoided, unless there is clear and urgent public need. It also states that the allottee before shifting would be given an opportunity to give his preference. There was no need for such haste and hurry on the part of the DDA to remove hawkers under the pilot project. We may also note here that DDA has not made any allegation that the appellant-NGO or any
