PM SVANidhi Recommendation Letters Do Not Alter Certificate-of-Vending Category; “Others” Vendors Must Vend as Mobile Vendors and Avoid No‑Vending Zones

1. Introduction

In PHOOL CHAND & ORS. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. (Delhi High Court, decided on 21-07-2026, Citation: 2026 DHC 5812-DB), a Division Bench comprising Prathiba M. Singh, J. and Vikas Mahajan, J. addressed a dispute between street vendors (petitioners) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”).

The petitioners, vending in areas including Karol Bagh (Ward 102-N/99-N, Ajmal Khan Road) and Rajinder Nagar, approached the Court under Articles 226 and 227 seeking protection against interference with their vending activities, asserting that they held provisional Certificates of Vending (CoVs) and that Ministry recommendations indicated fixed vending locations.

The key issues were: (i) whether a Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs “recommendation” (for loan facilitation under PM SVANidhi) could determine or modify vending entitlement/location; (ii) the binding nature of the standard terms and conditions attached to provisional CoVs; and (iii) whether vendors falling under the CoV category “Others” could vend as fixed vendors and/or within No‑vending/No‑hawking zones.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court disposed of the writ petition by holding that: (a) the category and mode of vending are governed strictly by the provisional/final CoV issued by MCD; (b) any Ministry recommendation letter issued for enabling loan facilities under PM SVANidhi has no bearing on the vendor’s category or vending rights; (c) vendors categorized as “Others” are required to operate as mobile vendors and cannot vend in a No‑vending zone (specifically noted: Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh stated to be a No‑vending zone).

The Court directed that the petitioners: (i) vend as mobile vendors in accordance with CoV terms; (ii) not vend in No‑vending/No‑hawking areas; (iii) face removal by MCD and the local SHO if found vending in prohibited zones to ensure pedestrian flow and metro ingress/egress; and (iv) vend only outside non‑vending zones within the wards specified in their provisional CoVs. Subject to these conditions, their lawful vending activities were not to be disturbed. The directions were expressly made subject to any plan the Town Vending Committee-II may frame under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and the Court clarified that no vested rights would be claimed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment text does not cite any prior judicial precedents by name. The Court’s resolution is driven primarily by: (i) the documentary regime of vending authorization (the CoV and its standard conditions), and (ii) the statutory framework under the Street Vendors Act, 2014 and the Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

  1. CoV terms govern vending rights; judicial notice of standard conditions
    The petitioners relied on their provisional CoVs but had not annexed the standard terms and conditions. The Court held it could take judicial notice that provisional CoVs are accompanied by standard conditions, and it reproduced them in the order. This reasoning treats the CoV as a conditional authorization: the “right to vend” exists, but only within the regulatory parameters explicitly attached to the certificate (hygiene, non-obstruction, non-transferability, no structures, compliance with Scheme 2019, etc.).
  2. PM SVANidhi recommendation letters do not modify vending category or entitlements
    The Court drew a sharp distinction between (a) administrative recommendations meant to enable access to credit under the PM SVANidhi Scheme, and (b) the legal authorization to vend (the CoV). It held that a Ministry recommendation letter “has no bearing on, and cannot affect, the category of vending.” The operative category is the one stated in the CoV issued by MCD. This prevents the loan-facilitation process from being used as a proxy to claim fixed sites or upgraded status.
  3. “Others” category implies “mobile vending” and restricts fixed-location claims
    On the facts, several petitioners were in the CoV category “Others”. The Court held that under this category, the petitioners “are required to be mobile vendors.” This finding is critical: it converts the dispute from “non-interference at an asserted fixed location” into “permitted vending only in a mobile manner,” aligning with the certificate conditions (including the time-limits for mobile vendors, e.g., not staying beyond prescribed time).
  4. No-vending/No-hawking zones are enforceable; public convenience prioritized at sensitive locations
    The Court emphasized that vendors cannot operate in a No‑vending zone or No‑squatting area (including the stated Ajmal Khan Road area). It specifically directed MCD and the concerned SHO to ensure removal if vendors are found in prohibited zones, to prevent obstruction of pedestrians and to keep metro station ingress/egress unhindered. The reasoning reflects a balancing exercise: livelihood protection exists, but it does not extend to locations where vending is prohibited for traffic, pedestrian safety, and public order.
  5. No vested rights; subordination to statutory planning under Section 21
    The Court made its directions subject to any plan the Town Vending Committee-II may frame under Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, and clarified that the petitioners would claim no vested rights. This preserves statutory primacy: court-granted operational protection is interim/conditional and cannot ossify into permanent entitlements contrary to future vending plans.

3.3 Impact

  • Separation of “credit enablement” from “vending authorization”: The ruling makes clear that PM SVANidhi-related recommendation letters cannot be used to claim fixed vending sites or to alter the vending category. Future disputes are likely to be decided by reference to the CoV text rather than collateral administrative communications.
  • Strengthened enforceability of CoV conditions: By taking judicial notice of standard terms and enforcing them, the Court signals that vendors and authorities alike must treat CoV conditions as binding. This may reduce litigation premised on incomplete annexures or selective reliance on certificates.
  • Clear operational rule for “Others” category: The judgment operationalizes “Others” as requiring mobile vending, which will guide enforcement and adjudication in similar petitions, especially in high-footfall markets and near metro corridors.
  • Enhanced coordination between civic authorities and police: The directive to MCD and the SHO to ensure removal from prohibited zones formalizes a coordinated enforcement expectation, particularly where pedestrian movement and metro access are affected.
  • Deference to TVC planning (Section 21): The “no vested rights” caveat may become a standard judicial technique to prevent interim protections from undermining evolving vending plans and demarcations.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Certificate of Vending (CoV)
An official permission to vend under the statutory framework. It is not an unrestricted right; it is subject to conditions and location/ward/category specifications.
Provisional CoV
A temporary/initial certificate that authorizes vending subject to standard conditions, pending finalization. It still binds the vendor to its terms.
Mobile vendor
A vendor who must move and cannot occupy a fixed site for extended periods; the CoV conditions in this case included a restriction against staying/vending beyond the prescribed time (e.g., “not more than 30 minutes” or as prescribed by the TVC).
No‑vending / No‑hawking / No‑squatting zone
An area where vending is prohibited to protect pedestrian movement, traffic flow, public safety, or access to key infrastructure (e.g., metro stations). Even certified vendors cannot vend there.
Town Vending Committee (TVC)
The statutory body responsible for regulation and planning of street vending, including demarcation and management of vending zones.
Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014
A statutory planning mechanism under which the TVC may frame plans affecting where and how vending is regulated; the Court kept its directions subject to such future planning.
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Constitutional provisions empowering the High Court to issue writs and supervise subordinate authorities/tribunals. Here, they were invoked to seek protection against alleged unlawful interference with vending.
PM SVANidhi Scheme
A central scheme to facilitate micro-credit to street vendors. The Court clarified that documents for loan facilitation do not determine the legal category or entitlement to a vending site.

5. Conclusion

The judgment establishes a clear operational rule: street vending rights and modalities flow from the CoV and its standard conditions, not from PM SVANidhi-related recommendation letters. Vendors in the “Others” category must function as mobile vendors and are strictly barred from No‑vending/No‑hawking zones. At the same time, the Court protects lawful vending outside prohibited zones, while ensuring that civic planning under Section 21 remains paramount and that no interim direction crystallizes into a vested right.