Delhi HC Questions GNCTD For Returning NDMC Vending Plan, Warns Of 'Law and Order Problem' Over Street Vendors

The observations were made by Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan while hearing a batch of petitions concerning implementation of the Street Vendors Act and the Town Vending Plans in Delhi.

Senior Advocate Sanjeev Ralli, appearing for the petitioners, traced the history of the litigation, submitting that the Court's order dated 5 February 2026 had directed the Delhi Government to consider objections raised by both shopkeepers and street vendors before approving the vending plan already submitted by the NDMC in October 2025.

He informed the Court that pursuant to the order, a meeting was held before the Joint Secretary, Urban Development Department on 24 February 2026, where all stakeholders participated. However, instead of deciding the objections, the Government later sent the matter back to the NDMC.

Referring to the Court's order dated 18 May 2026, Jain argued that the Court had already found the Government's approach confusing and had directed the Chief Secretary to resolve the issue.

During the hearing, it was pointed out that by a communication dated 25 May 2026, the Urban Development Department returned the original vending plan to the NDMC.

Justice Singh immediately questioned the rationale behind the decision. "But how does this have anything to do with what we've done already?" the Court asked.

Appearing for the GNCTD, Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Sameer Vashisht submitted that the plan had deficiencies and required modification because the survey was incomplete and certain stakeholders had not been adequately considered.

The explanation, however, did not satisfy the Court. "You're really passing the buck here," Justice Singh remarked.

When the Government stated that the revised plan was necessary because additional vending sites had to be identified and issues concerning the Town Vending Committee (TVC) remained unresolved, the Court observed that the Government appeared unwilling to take a final decision.

"In all this black and white, we get only one-line message from you... you don't want to approve it," the Court observed.

The Bench further criticised the Government for relying upon developments that took place after the Court's May directions.

"This was to be in the stage of Section 21(2). To now put it back to Section 21(1)... This is an eyewash," Justice Singh said.

The Court also rejected the Government's justification that the TVC's competence and tenure required reconsideration.

"The clear feeling that we get is that that TVC competence and tenure will never be there... You could have ex post facto regularised it. Why you didn't do it?" the Court asked.

During the hearing, the Court also expressed concern over the prolonged failure to implement a workable vending framework in Delhi.

"The day is not far when there will be open fights on the streets between these shopkeepers and these vendors. And the only person responsible will be the Delhi Government," Justice Singh cautioned.

When the Government assured the Court that a decision would be taken within 30 days of receiving a revised plan from the NDMC, the Bench remained unconvinced. "This is an eyewash. We cannot... No doubt in our mind," the Court remarked.

The Court also noted that the Government's latest status report reflected a complete lack of confidence in approving the existing vending plan and questioned why the statutory approval process had effectively been restarted after months of proceedings.

Observing that the continued uncertainty would only worsen the situation for vendors, shopkeepers and the public, the Court indicated that it would require the NDMC to respond to the Government's status report before proceeding further.

The matter has now been directed to be listed on November 26 for further consideration.

In its most recent order dated May 18, a Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain had expressed serious concern over what it described as the "utter confusion" prevailing in the regulation of street vendors and tehbazari holders across Delhi. The Court observed that both the NDMC and the GNCTD lacked clarity on the manner in which the statutory scheme under the Street Vendors Act was to be implemented.

The Bench had found that while the NDMC had already submitted its Town Vending Plan to the GNCTD on October 9, 2025, the Government had not taken a final decision. It also noted that the plan itself remained incomplete as nearly 200 additional vending sites still had to be identified before final approval. At the same time, hundreds of existing tehbazari holders and squatters had not participated in the statutory survey, while provisional Certificates of Vending had been issued to around 2,000 vendors pending finalisation of the vending plan.

The Court was equally critical of the situation in MCD areas, observing that the vending plan had not yet been finalised or even submitted to the GNCTD for approval. It also recorded that more than 13,000 tehbazari holders and squatters had not participated in the survey process and that the constitution of one of the Town Vending Committees was still pending, resulting in continued ad hoc occupation of public spaces.

Holding that there was a "complete absence of decision-making", the Bench directed the Chief Secretary of the GNCTD to personally convene a meeting with senior officials of the GNCTD, MCD, NDMC and other concerned departments to evolve a clear policy. The Chief Secretary was also directed to file a status report before the Court and remain present through virtual mode on the next date of hearing.

Earlier proceedings

The proceedings earlier focused on the implementation of the Street Vendors Act in Chandni Chowk. In the order dated February 5, the High Court narrowed the controversy to a key question: whether existing tehbazari holders should automatically be treated as street vendors and considered for issuance of Certificates of Vending without undergoing a fresh survey.

The Court noted that confusion had arisen from an affidavit filed by the MCD stating that tehbazari licences and Certificates of Vending were "two separate aspects" and "not interchangeable." According to the MCD, approximately 1,586 existing tehbazari holders in Chandni Chowk had already been recognised and therefore did not require a fresh survey, while the survey under Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act was intended only for previously unidentified vendors.

Since no MCD representative was present to clarify this position, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner, City SP Zone, MCD, to remain personally present on the next date of hearing. It also recorded that although surveys had been conducted after preparation of the initial vending plan, the authorities were required to explain the status of the revised Street Vending Plan and the manner in which existing licence holders would be accommodated under the statutory framework.

Over the course of the proceedings, the litigation expanded beyond Chandni Chowk to encompass street vending issues across Delhi, including Connaught Place, Palika Bazaar, Sarojini Nagar, Karol Bagh and Lajpat Nagar, with the High Court repeatedly emphasising the need for a legally compliant, city-wide vending plan balancing the interests of vendors, shopkeepers and the general public.