$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22nd January, 2026 Date of upload: 27th January, 2026. + W.P.(C) 5617/2016&CM APPL. 23344/2016, CM APPL. 9938/2017, CM APPL. 9954/2017, CM APPL. 9955/2017, CM APPL. 10330/2017, CM APPL. 10662/2017, CM APPL. 14376/2017, CM APPL. 22153/2017, CM APPL. 24416/2018, CM APPL. 36496/2018, CM APPL. 46804/2018 MAHILA HAWKER WELFARE ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kr Mishra, Mr. Swagata Gupta, Ms. Renu, Ms. Kavita & Ms. Mansi, Advs. (M:8013313825) versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHAHDRA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms Avni Singh, Panel Counsel-GNCTD with Ms. Vaibhav Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajan Tyagi, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vijeta Mukherjee and Samar Partap Singh Advs. and Sudershan Kumar, AO from MCD. (M:9958523388) Inspector Sandeep Kumar and SI Anshul, PS PIA. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present writ petition was filed by the Mahila Hawkers Welfare Association through its President, seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the Respondents to allow the vendors of the Petitioner Association to vend peacefully near the Anand Vihar Bus Stand. 3. The petition consists of an annexed list of members marked as ‘Annexure P-1’, which includes names of 114 vendors from the National Hawkers Federation. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that they have been squatting near the Anand Vihar Bus Stand for several years and that they ought not to be disturbed from their respective vending spots. 5. In the present case, notice was issued by the Court on 10th June, 2016, and it was directed that the Respondent No.3– MCD, would not take any coercive measures against the members of the Petitioner association, as listed in ‘Annexure P-1’. Thus, protection was granted to the 114 hawkers who formed the part of the list annexed as ‘Annexure P-1’. 6. Further, it was clarified in the said order itself that the interim protection being granted shall only be available to street vendors and not to vendors who were hawking on the foot over bridge. The said interim order dated 10th June, 2016 is relevant and is set out below: “The petitioner has filed this petition claiming benefit of Section 3 of the Street Venders (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. It is contended that the members of the petitioner/Association shown in Annexure P-I are street vendors/hawkers and have been vending at the respective spots for several years. It is contended that the respondents are threatening to evict the petitioner without complying with the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 20.08.2014 in W.P.(C) No.4303/2014 (National Association of Street Vendors of India versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others), wherein the Division Bench of this Court had noted that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act provide that no street vendors shall be evicted till the survey is completed by the Town Vending Committee. Since there is no Town Vending Committee in place, the survey could not take place. Let counter-affidavit be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder-affidavit, thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. Renotify before the roster bench on 03.08.2016: In the meanwhile, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the members of the petitioner/association listed in Annexure P-I. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that some of the hawkers/vendors are hawking on the foot over bridge. It is clarified that the interim protection shall not be available on the foot over bridge and shall be only available only to the street-vendors. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.” 7. The said direction that the interim protection granted to the street vendors vide order dated 10th June, 2016 would not provide any protection to the hawkers hawking on the footover bridge was reiterated by the Court on 3rd August, 2016 as well. 8. On 31st January, 2017, it was brought to the notice of the ld. Single Judge, who was dealing with this writ petition, that an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 1346/2015 titled Court on its own motion (Air Pollution in Delhi) vs. Union of India & Ors., on 12th January, 2017, wherein it was directed that the roads at the concerned area ought to be repaired by the MCD and kept free from encroachment. 9. However, on 31st January, 2017 itself, it was further submitted on behalf of MCD that due to the previous order passed by the ld. Single Judge dated 10th June, 2016 in the present petition, they were unable to give effect to the order of the Division Bench dated 12th January, 2017. Accordingly, on 31st January, 2017, the following order was passed in the present petition: “CM No.3777/2017 This is an application filed on behalf of the East Delhi Municipal Corporation seeking recall of order dated 10.06.2016, whereby, protection was granted to the members of the petitioner association. It is contended that, by order dated 12.01.2017 in WP(C) No.1346/2015 titled Court on its own motion (Air Pollution in Delhi) vs. Union of India &Ors., the Division Bench has directed the East Delhi Municipal Corporation to ensure that the roads which fall under their jurisdiction are repaired and kept free from any encroachment so that there is free flow of traffic. Steps have to be taken by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation and the status report filed before the Division Bench before the next date of hearing i.e. 02.02.2017. Learned counsel appearing for the East Delhi Municipal Corporation submits that, on account of the order dated 10.06.2016, the respondent -East Delhi Municipal Corporation is not in a position to comply with the orders passed by the Division Bench of keeping the area free from any encroachment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the members of the petitioner association are not, in any manner, obstructing the road or footpath and are squatting on PWD land and the road and footpath are free and are not being used by any of the members of the petitioner association. The petitioner, alongwith the petition, has filed a rough sketch plan as Annexure - P3, which is extracted herein under: With reference to the above rough sketch plan, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner, that the place where the members of the petitioner association claim to be, is shown as black dots in the area described as "P.W.D. kiJagahDukandaar". In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clarified that the interim order dated 10.06.2016 would not ensure to the benefit of any of the members of the petitioner association who are squatting either on the 60 feet road, 26 feet service road, 5 feet footpath or 6 feet footpath or the foot over bridge shown in the rough sketch plan hereinabove. The respondent - East Delhi Municipal Corporation is free to take action against any squatter,hawker, encroacher, on the 60 feet road, 26 feet service road, 5 feet footpath or 6 feet footpath or the foot over bridge, in terms of orders of the Division Bench. The interim application is, accordingly, disposed of. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.” 10. As per the above order dated 31st January, 2017, MCD was permitted to take action against squatters, hawkers, encroachers on the 60 feet road, 26 feet service road and the other footpath. However, the protection provided to the Petitioner vide the previous order dated 10th June, 2016, was continued. 11. Thereafter, on 10th March, 2017, another application was filed on behalf of the National Hawkers Association consisting of 126 members, claiming that they were also hawking outside Anand Vihar for several years. Out of the said 126 members, challans were filed for 72 members. 12. On the ground that the 72 members whose challans were filed had been vending for several years and that they should not be disturbed from their vends, the Court accepted the said challans and directed that the said 72 members would not be disturbed from vending, in terms of order dated 10th June, 2016. The following paragraphs of the said order dated 10th March, 2017 are relevant and are set out below: “Since the applicant has shown prima facie evidence with regard to only 72 of the members, it is directed that, till the next date of hearing, said 72 members of the applicant association would be entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Street Vendors Policy (Protection of Livelihood & Regularization of Street Vending) Act, 2014. Similar protection will be granted to them as has been granted to the petitioners vide order dated 10.06.2016. It is noticed that the interim order dated 10.06.2016 itself records that the interim protection shall not be available on the foot over bridge and shall be available only to the street vendors. It may further be noted that on 31.01.2017, this court had clarified that the interim order dated 10.06.2016 would not enure to the benefit of any of the members of the petitioner either on the 60 feet road, 26 feet service road, 5 feet footpath or 6 feet footpath or the foot over bridge as shown in the rough sketch plan extracted in the said order. That restriction would also apply qua the members of the applicant association.” 13. Thus, vide the orders discussed above, dated 10th June, 2016, 31st January, 2017 and 10th March, 2017, the Court had clarified that the MCD can take action against any squatters and hawkers on the 60 feet road, 26 feet service road, 5 feet footpath or 6 feet footpath, as also the ones hawking on the footover bridge. It was also clarified that the street vendors would not be entitled to set up any structures. The said interim protection is continuing till date. 14. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time. On 13th January, 2026, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the Petitioner which was opposed by ld. Counsel for the MCD on the ground that there are various orders which are passed by other Benches of the Court which have directed that the congestion on the footpath at ISBT Anand Vihar ought to be cleared. 15. Today, Mr. Tyagi, ld. Counsel has also informed the Court that the survey in the said area, that was to be conducted by the Town Vending Committee in accordance with The Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood and Regulation of street vending) Act, 2014, has also now been conducted. 16. Upon conclusion of the said survey, it has been ascertained that out of all the vendors vending at the Anand Vihar Bus Stand area, there are only 105 vendors who have a provisional Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, ‘COV’) for temporary vending. 17. It is further submitted by Mr. Tyagi, ld. Counsel, that the vendors have created proper permanent structures and are the cause of enormous congestion outside the ISBT Anand Vihar Station, which is causing extreme difficulties to the passengers, tourists etc., who come from different cities. Some photographs have also been handed over by Mr. Tyagi, ld. Counsel, depicting the said position. 18. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the hawkers who are part of the Petitioner Association do have COVs, and they have been hawking for a long time, but he does not dispute the position that the permanent structures could not have been created by the hawkers. 19. The Court has heard the matter at length today. 20. The ISBT Anand Vihar Terminal renders an extremely crucial essential service area for passengers who use the said bus terminal. 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. The Kaushambi Bus Stand, which connects several passengers from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh, is also stated to be in the nearby neighbourhood itself. 21. The Court has also perused the photographs which have been handed over today by Mr. Tyage, ld. Counsel. The said photographs are taken on record and are extracted below: 22. The pictures extracted above clearly show 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. 23. The COVs which are provisional in nature clearly incorporate a condition that hawkers cannot have permanent structures. The said provisional COVs also consist of a category ‘others’ and one of the conditions therein is that the vendors have to be mobile vendors. 24. Clearly, the hawkers at the Anand Vihar Bus Stand area are not adhering to the conditions of the COVs issued to them. Moreover, any main road of this nature is a non-hawking area in terms of the policy of the MCD, which describes “non-hawking area” as under: “All approved commercial areas, VIP roads, main roads and areas shown under squatting area” 25. The clear position that emerges from the facts and submissions made today is that the congestion in the Anand Vihar Bus Stand area deserves to be removed. 26. In addition, the Court is of the view that the MCD ought to be permitted to beautify the area, by creating a service road where passengers who come in three-wheelers, cabs, auto rickshaws or other transports can easily alight, before entering the railway station or bus stand. 27. There ought to be free space for movement of the public. Beautification and development of the area is also required, so that the passengers and tourists can enjoy a comfortable experience while visiting a bus stand or the nearby railway station. 28. The manner in which hawking is presently being done is completely impermissible as it also encroaches upon the area created for easy movement of the public. 29. Thus, the entire area deserves to be properly re-planned, laid out, landscaped and tiled. As part of this process, some shops, cafes, resting areas, sanitation facilities, etc., ought to be created for the passengers in a manner so as to not impede their free movement. 30. Under these circumstances, the present position cannot continue. 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. 31. The MCD shall, accordingly, take steps, along with the SHO or the DCP of the concerned area, to remove all the vendors. However, adequate time shall be given of at least five to six days for the vendors to remove their wares. Hence, 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. 32. No person shall obstruct or create any impediment in the removal of these vends. After the said 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. 33. 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, as directed above. The said plan shall also be placed on record before the Court by 10th March, 2026. 34. The MCD is free to take the assistance of any Architect in PWD in this regard including Ms. Sabita Sahoo, Architect, PWD (+91 7205532243), in the entire process of preparing the architectural plan, as stated above. Further, the PWD shall also assist the MCD in creating a plan for beautification of this area so that the work can commence on an early date, upon the plan being placed before this Court. 35. By 10th March, 2026, the MCD shall place on record the said plan, both in electronic form and in a hard copy. 36. With the present order being passed, all previously granted interim orders stand modified in terms thereof. Insofar as the applications filed by other hawkers and vendors for directions are concerned, 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. 37. All encroachments and any other shops, carts, vends, etc., are also permitted to be removed. The list of the 105 vendors recognized by the TVC during its survey has been handed over to the Court today and is taken on record. The said list is attached with the present order and is marked as ‘Annexure A-1’. 38. Additionally, it is directed that if there are any other vendors who participated in the survey conducted by TVC and were found eligible in terms of the said survey shall be permitted to vend their wares, only if the provisional COVs have been issued to them by the TVC. 39. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 40. List for compliance on 30th March, 2026. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE JANUARY 22, 2026 dj/ss Annexure A-1 List of vendors to whom COV/survey has been approved (Old Ward No. 18E/New No. 206) Anand Vihar SNo URI Number Vendor Name Fathers Name 1 3345515 Brijesh Sh. Sateesh 2 3524910 Netrapal Sh. Vishnu Dayal 3 2087553 Bhrampal Sh. Hans Raj 4 8736689 Santosh Kumar Sh. Heera 5 8473428 Munesh Sh. Chandra Koshika 6 9279037 Faisal Sh. Rahat Ali 7 8064639 Neeraj Kumar Sh. Virendra Prasad 8 1262116 Arjun Singh Sh. Mange Ram 9 6127818 Zafar Khan Sh. Sabuddin 10 3263656 Rajeev Jaiswal Sh. Keshan Kumar 11 9814624 Harihar Prasad Sh. Dhura Batur 12 7217232 Ram Vichar Sah Sh. Gorakh Sah 13 4265812 Briz Kishor Pandey Sh. Sri Ram Pandey 14 6544622 Pintu Gupta Sh. Keshav Gupta 15 1374186 Rakesh Kumar Sah Sh. Sri Ram Vichar Shah 16 2017315 Rahat Khan Sh. Nawab Ali 17 3896020 Omendra Kumar Sh. Virendra Singh 18 6506473 Subodh Bhagat Sh. Tunatun Bhagat 19 5312561 Aram Singh Sh. Hans Raj 20 7179268 Ram Lakhan Sh. Nanku Lal 21 7583084 Anil Rawat Sh. Shiv Prasad Ravat 22 2884525 Shyam Jeet Kumar Sh. Jogindra Sah 23 2561747 Shanta Late Sh. Ram Asray 24 2685713 Aslam Sh. Majeed 25 1550575 Munna Singh Late Sh. Chandira Singh 26 9240082 Umesh Kumar Singh Sh. Chandrika Singh 27 1583725 Rajesh Kumar Singh Sh. Chandrika Singh 28 6466665 Neeraj Gupta Sh. Shanti Swaroop Gupta 29 1949522 Ranjeet Kumar Sah Sh. Seeta Ram Sah 30 3138300 Santosh Sah Sh. Seeta Ram Sah 31 3257136 Sanjay Prasad Sh. Prithvi Nath Prasad 32 8082612 Umashanker Prasad Sh. Sheetal Prasad 33 7442310 Sonu Kumar Gupta Sh. Ghanshyam Prasad Gupta 34 4740415 Dheeraj Kumar Sh. Hari Prasad Gupta 35 2316626 Om Prakash Singh Sh. Ram Lakhan Singh 36 8107054 Chhedi Singh Sh. Ram Lakhan Singh 37 7061747 Shyam Kumar Sh. Ganesh Shah 38 3851182 Mohd Nazim Sh. Kamruddin 39 5688064 Mo Aslam Sh. Kamruddin 40 3250684 Chandrama Ram Sh. Amerika Ram 41 3527744 Mantu Ram Sh. Amerika Ram 42 1484265 Hari Prasad Gupta Sh. Bhola Prasad Gupta 43 4377623 Vishwa Karma Ram Sh. Chanderika Ram 44 5245864 Jainul Basher Sh. Samso Kamar 45 9916853 Ram Kishan Sh. Roshan Lal 46 9294548 Dharam Veer Sh. Roshan Lal 47 8453681 Vicky Sh. Gangaram 48 2441228 Praveen Sh. Bal Mukund 49 4947691 Anil Kumar Porwal Sh. Chhote Lal 50 8605699 Suresh Gupta Sh. Bhola Prasad Gupta 51 7691914 Deenanath Gupta Sh. Munne Lal 52 6844379 Mithun Sh. Sudama Singh 53 2596593 Dharamveer Sah Sh. Sudama Sah 54 1771982 Ranjeet Sah Sonelal Sah 55 6538293 Manoj Kumar Sh. Sudama Sah 56 4917146 Maheswar Kumar Sh. Babbu Pandit 57 3139911 Chandrakesh Sh. Badan Singh 58 1184555 Ram Swaroop Sh. Chhote Lal 59 4927493 Rohit Sh. Ramswaroop 60 1289859 Md Motiur Rahmen Sh. Samshera 61 4457301 Rajesh Kumar Sah Sh. Seeta Ram Sah 62 3342505 Dinesh Chander Sh. Sone Lal 63 7713243 Soni 41 Sh. Mehesh Chandra 64 2837216 Nandan Singh Sh. Jaya Singh 65 4752021 Mohd Mujammil Sh. Rafi Ujamma 66 8040786 Nand Kishor Sh. Ram Vikas 67 7168941 Vikram Singh Sh. Ganga Ram 68 4450295 Bantu Sh. Mahesh Chandra 69 7510750 Govind Sh. Sukhveer 70 2674581 Pramod Kumar Rathor Sh. Gaya Prasad 71 6887686 Mahesh Chand Sh. Sone Lal 72 7022244 Chhote Lal Sri Kalyan Singh 73 2461416 Naresh Chand Sri Sonelal 74 5098588 Dalveer Singh Sri Babu Ram 75 1466180 Ajeet Mishra Sri Seshnath Mishra 76 8385548 Chandrana Sah Ranajatan Sah 77 8852433 Santosh Saah Sri Jogendra Saah 78 3383229 Manish Kumar Sri Suresh Kumar 79 2627940 Bheem Gupta Sri Shami Gupta 80 3004291 Sunil Ravat Sri Shiv parsad Ravat 81 3463111 Radhey Shyam Sri Narayan Chowdhari 82 4604945 Abdul Mazeed Sri Rahmaat Ali 83 1438569 Ramu Gupta Sri Ganesh Sah 84 1265224 Matiulla Sri Khatyi 85 8420085 Sandeep Sri Rasham 86 3511554 Shammu Chauhan Ram Avatar 87 6400330 Mukesh Kumar Sri Ramnarayan 88 5171304 Bajarangi Gupta Sri Harigware Gupta 89 5758849 Swatantra Kumar Thakur Sri Ramsuresh Thakur 90 8604386 Sudher Rai Sri Upendra Kumar 91 8852589 Ramesh Kumar Sri Hari 92 7934532 Raguveer Sri Sundari 93 1899261 Guddu Bharti Bilas Bharti 94 8622776 Sh. Ganga Ram Sh. Gurman 95 5577047 Sh. Ajeem Alam Sh. Akhmaz Israil Alam 96 2606359 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Sh. Roshan Lal 97 3132791 Sh. Vijay Shah Sh. Vishava Nath Shah 98 5546128 Sh. Amit Sh. Hakim 99 5075743 Sh. Jitender Gupta Sh. Hari Prasad Gupta 100 2601233 Sh. Hakim Singh Sh. Kedar Singh 101 3596890 Sh. Atul Sh. Hakim Singh 102 9626118 Ch. Rohtash Singh Ch. Fateh Singh 103 7360086 Sh. Raju Mishra Sh. Rambushan Mishra 104 1177948 Sh. Omveer Sh. Mangat Singh 105 6868634 Sh. Rinku Sh. Ramesh Chandra W.P.(C) 5617/2016 Page 1 of 2