RANJIT KUMAR V. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE JANGPURA 2026:DHC:5896-DB:

DATE: 23.07.2026

COURT: High Court of Delhi

BENCH: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan

FACTS:

The petitioner, a street vendor with 40% locomotor disability, held a valid Certificate of Vending (CoV) issued under the "Others" category and had been carrying on his vending business near the old bus adda at Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi. He was evicted from the vending site by officials of the Delhi Police, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and the Public Works Department as part of an exercise undertaken in connection with the Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) project being developed by the National Capital Region Transport Corporation (NCRTC). In an earlier order dated 7 July 2026, the Delhi High Court had declined to interfere with the removal of vendors from the project site, recognizing the necessity of maintaining unobstructed ingress and egress to the transport hub. However, considering the petitioner's disability and valid vending certificate, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to identify an alternative vending site in the vicinity so that his livelihood would not be adversely affected. The petitioner also undertook to comply with all the terms and conditions of his Certificate of Vending at the alternate site.

When the authorities failed to identify and allot an alternative vending site within the stipulated period, the petitioner filed the present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking implementation of the earlier order. During the hearing, the Court examined the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Jangpura, which revealed that the Special Task Force was considering multiple factors, including the operational requirements of the Sarai Kale Khan Namo Bharat Station-cum-Transit Hub, the removal of encroachments, pedestrian safety, and the rights of authorized street vendors. The authorities also highlighted that more than 229 stalls and kiosks were functioning in the area, causing significant obstruction to commuters. The Court therefore had to balance the petitioner's right to livelihood with the public interest in ensuring safe pedestrian movement and efficient operation of the transit infrastructure.

ISSUES:

The principal issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had failed to comply with the Court's earlier direction to provide the petitioner, a disabled street vendor holding a valid Certificate of Vending, with an alternative vending site. The Court was also required to determine how the petitioner's statutory right to livelihood as an authorized street vendor could be balanced against the public interest in maintaining unobstructed pedestrian access and effective functioning of the Sarai Kale Khan transit hub developed under the RRTS project.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Delhi High Court disposed of the application by granting the Assistant Commissioner, MCD, a further period of four weeks to identify an appropriate alternative vending site for the petitioner. While reiterating that the petitioner deserved special consideration as a person with disabilities holding a valid Certificate of Vending, the Court held that the ongoing efforts of the authorities to regulate vending around the transit hub and ensure pedestrian safety justified the delay. The Court further directed that no street vendor should obstruct the activities of the Special Task Force in implementing the redevelopment and traffic management measures.

The Court reiterated its earlier finding that infrastructure projects of significant public importance, such as the Regional Rapid Transit System, require the government and its agencies to maintain safe and unobstructed access for commuters using railway stations, metro stations, and other transport facilities. Judicial interference with decisions concerning ingress, egress, traffic movement, and public infrastructure would therefore be limited unless the authorities acted arbitrarily or contrary to law. At the same time, the Court recognized that the petitioner was not an unauthorized encroacher but a licensed street vendor possessing a valid Certificate of Vending and suffering from 40% locomotor disability. Consequently, although the removal of vendors from the project site was justified, the authorities remained under an obligation to rehabilitate the petitioner by identifying an alternative vending location in accordance with the Court's earlier directions, thereby ensuring that his means of livelihood was protected without compromising public infrastructure.

The Court further accepted the explanation offered by the authorities that the delay in allotting an alternate vending site resulted from the comprehensive exercise being undertaken by the Special Task Force pursuant to the SDM's order. The authorities were required to evaluate several competing considerations, including widespread encroachments, the presence of over 229 stalls and kiosks obstructing pedestrian movement, the need to facilitate access to the Namo Bharat Station, Delhi Metro, and Nizamuddin Railway Station, and the Supreme Court's recognition of pedestrians' right to safe and demarcated walking spaces as a fundamental right. The Court emphasized that the rights of authorized street vendors cannot be considered in isolation and must be harmonized with the constitutional rights of commuters and pedestrians. Since the authorities were actively engaged in identifying suitable vending spaces for authorized vendors while simultaneously ensuring orderly urban management, the Court found it appropriate to extend the time for compliance by four weeks instead of initiating coercive proceedings, thereby striking a balance between the petitioner's right to livelihood and the larger public interest.

ANALYSIS:

The decision reflects the Delhi High Court's pragmatic approach in balancing the statutory rights of licensed street vendors with the competing public interest arising from large-scale urban infrastructure projects. While the Court reaffirmed that authorized street vendors holding valid Certificates of Vending are entitled to protection under the law, it also recognized that such rights are not absolute and must yield where necessary to ensure the safe and efficient functioning of public transport infrastructure. By refusing to interfere with the removal of vendors from areas required for the Regional Rapid Transit System project, the Court acknowledged the administrative expertise of government agencies in matters relating to urban planning, traffic regulation, and public safety. Simultaneously, the Court ensured that the petitioner's livelihood was not sacrificed by directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to identify an alternative vending site, thereby reinforcing the principle that developmental projects must be accompanied by fair rehabilitation measures for those lawfully displaced.

The judgment is equally significant for emphasizing that urban governance requires a harmonious reconciliation of multiple constitutional and statutory interests rather than the absolute prioritization of any single right. The Court relied upon the ongoing exercise undertaken by the Special Task Force and the Supreme Court's recognition of pedestrians' right to safe and demarcated walking spaces to underscore that public infrastructure must remain accessible and free from encroachments. At the same time, the Court extended additional time for compliance instead of initiating contempt or coercive action, recognizing that the authorities were engaged in a comprehensive process of identifying suitable vending spaces for authorized vendors. This measured approach demonstrates judicial restraint by allowing the executive sufficient latitude to implement urban redevelopment while ensuring continued judicial oversight to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly persons with disabilities, whose statutory right to earn a livelihood deserves meaningful accommodation within the framework of planned urban development.