Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to clear the congested stretches around the Anand Vihar ISBT by removing all hawkers and vendors operating there, while allowing only 105 vendors identified as eligible in the Town Vending Committee’s survey to vend through mobile carts without any permanent structures. The dispute arose from a petition seeking protection for street vending near the bus terminal, which the MCD opposed citing obstruction and encroachment. The Bench noted that vendors had set up outlet-like vends occupying pedestrian pathways, and directed removal to proceed after notice, with the recognised vendors to be guided on compliant placement.

The writ petition was instituted by a registered association of women street vendors seeking protection against eviction and coercive action by local authorities in the vicinity of the Anand Vihar Bus Stand, Delhi. The petitioner asserted that its members had been vending in the area for several years and were entitled to protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. An initial list of 114 vendors was placed on record, and interim protection was granted in 2016, subject to specific spatial restrictions.

Also Read: Release On Probation Does Not Erase Conviction Stigma In Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

The municipal authorities opposed the continuation of blanket protection, contending that vending activities were causing serious congestion near a major inter-State transport hub and that several vendors had erected permanent structures in violation of statutory conditions. It was also submitted that a statutory survey by the Town Vending Committee had since been completed. Photographic material was produced showing obstruction of pedestrian pathways and public roads.

Upon completion of the survey, authorities reported that only 105 vendors were found eligible and issued provisional Certificates of Vending for temporary, mobile vending. The dispute thus centred on whether continued protection could extend beyond surveyed vendors and whether permanent or semi-permanent vending structures could be permitted in the Anand Vihar terminal area.

The Court noted that the Anand Vihar Bus Terminal constitutes a critical public utility area with exceptionally high daily footfall, observing that “lakhs of passengers, as also the Indian Railways, DMRC operate from the said area and hence, the area sees a large footfall on a daily basis.”

After examining photographs placed on record, the Court recorded that “most of the hawkers have created permanent vends and they are no longer merely hawkers, since they have put up their outlet-like small shops, covering large areas including pedestrian pathways.” The Bench observed that such conduct was inconsistent with the nature of provisional Certificates of Vending, which “clearly incorporate a condition that hawkers cannot have permanent structures.”

The Court further stated that the category under which the vendors were placed required them to function as mobile vendors, and that “the hawkers at the Anand Vihar Bus Stand area are not adhering to the conditions of the COVs issued to them.” It was also recorded that main roads and similar stretches are designated as non-hawking areas under the municipal policy.

Taking note of the cumulative material, the Court observed that “the congestion in the Anand Vihar Bus Stand area deserves to be removed” and that the prevailing manner of vending was “completely impermissible as it also encroaches upon the area created for easy movement of the public.”

The Bench further recorded that redevelopment and beautification of the area were necessary, observing that “there ought to be free space for movement of the public” and that passengers should have a “comfortable experience while visiting a bus stand or the nearby railway station.” The Court concluded that the existing situation could not be permitted to continue.

The Court directed that “the MCD shall, accordingly, take steps, along with the SHO or the DCP of the concerned area, to remove all the vendors. Adequate time shall be given of at least five to six days for the vendors to remove their wares,” and for this purpose “the MCD is granted time till 30th January, 2026 to take appropriate steps to inform the vendors of the directions of this Court. Thereafter, from the weekend commencing on 31st January, the removal of the vends shall commence.”

“No person shall obstruct or create any impediment in the removal of these vends. The hawkers deserve to be removed and only the 105 hawkers, as recognized during the survey, should be permitted to use mobile vends for selling their wares in an allocated manner. No permanent structure can be allowed to be created by the 105 recognized vendors as well.”

 Except for the 105 hawkers recognized during the survey, in terms of the list handed over today, no other vendor shall be permitted to vend in this area,” and clarified that “all encroachments and any other shops, carts, vends, etc., are also permitted to be removed.” Vendors who participated in the survey “shall be permitted to vend their wares, only if the provisional COVs have been issued to them by the TVC.”

After removal, “the recognised vendors shall be permitted to approach the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, who shall then guide the 105 recognised vendors as to the manner in which they can put up their carts and vends in the area, in compliance with the conditions enumerated in the provisional COVs issued to them.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Allows Delhi Govt To Directly Transfer School Uniform Subsidy To EWS/DG Students, Instead Of In-Kind Supply

“The MCD shall also prepare, with the help of an architect, a proper plan for beautification of the area and for allocation of proper spaces for eating outlets, sanitation facilities and for some shops,” and that “the said plan shall also be placed on record before the Court by 10th March, 2026. The MCD is free to take the assistance of any Architect in PWD in this regard,” and that “the PWD shall also assist the MCD in creating a plan for beautification of this area.”

“With the present order being passed, all previously granted interim orders stand modified in terms thereof,” and that “the petition is disposed of in these terms,” with the matter directed to be “listed for compliance on 30th March, 2026.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kamlesh Kr Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Swagata Gupta, Advocate; Ms. Renu, Advocate; Ms. Kavita, Advocate; Ms. Mansi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel for GNCTD with Ms. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Rajan Tyagi, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vijeta Mukherjee, Advocate and Mr. Samar Partap Singh, Advocate.

Case Title: Mahila Hawker Welfare Association v. District Magistrate, Shahdara & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:623-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 5617/2016
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Madhu Jain