Mohd. Nizam v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. No. 28760/2025

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 6327/2025

3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mohd. Nizam under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance of an appropriate writ to direct the Respondents-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) and the S.H.O. P.S. Ranjit Nagar, Delhi, to prevent unauthorised vending and seeking regulation of the weekly markets at New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi.

4. It is stated that the Petitioner is a resident of Z-64C, DDA Flat, New Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi-110008. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is that in Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi a weekly market is permissible only on Mondays when the shops are closed in the area. However, some individuals including one Mr.Wasim and his family members in collusion with the local authorities have started the Saturday weekly market and some amounts termed as `Protection Money’ is being collected by the said individuals and his family members. Further, the manner in which the weekly market is held, completely blocks any vehicular movement during the weekly markets.

5. According to the Petitioner, in December, 2024 his wife was unwell. He tried to take her to the hospital on a Saturday, however, he could not arrange for transport to take his wife to the hospital as the cab could not reach his residence, due to the obstructions caused by the weekly bazar. At about 7:30 pm in the evening, after a lot of effort, the Petitioner could finally take her to the hospital where she was declared as ‘brought dead’. The Petitioner has therefore filed this petition seeking appropriate directions and for streamlining the process of issuing tehbazari licences in the area.

6. Ld. Counsel for the MCD submits that the vendors who vend in the area are legally certified to do so.

7. This Court observes that on an everyday basis, there are several writ petitions filed by tehbazari holders on one hand, shopkeepers/vendors on the other hand and finally the residents. All three categories of persons claim their own rights. In some aspects, the rights do conflict with each other inasmuch as tehbazari holders who vend in front of shops may create a dent on the shopkeepers’ revenues. On other hand, tehbazari holders could also be creating impediments in the smooth flow of vehicular and human movement in residential areas, if allowed to vend in an irregular manner. Finally, livelihood of tehbazari holders also depends on the tehbazari vends that they put up. These three categories of persons form an integral part of society and conflicts arise from time to time which have to be resolved. The present is one such case.

8. Such conflicts have been taken note of by the Supreme Court. It has been observed that a balance has to be maintained, as held in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and Another v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, and others [(2004) 1 SCC 625] wherein the Supreme Court while recognising the right to livelihood of the vendors held that even though the rights of the vendors come under the ambit of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the same are liable to restrictions provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. Thus, amongst other things, hawking may not be permitted in areas which cause a hindrance to free flow of traffic as in the present case. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “The above authorities make it clear that the hawkers have a right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. This right, however, is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). Thus hawking may not be permitted where, e.g. due to narrowness of road, free flow of traffic or movement of pedestrians is hindered or where for security reasons an area is required to be kept free or near hospitals, places of worship etc. There is no fundamental right under Article 21 to carry on any hawking business. There is also no right to do hawking at any particular place. The authorities also recognize the fact that if properly regulated, the small traders can considerably add to the convenience and comfort of the general public, by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. The scheme must keep in mind the above principles. So far as Mumbai is concerned, the scheme must comply with the conditions laid down in Bombay Hawkers' Union case [(1985) 3 SCC 528]. Those conditions have become final and there is no changed circumstance which necessitates any alteration.”

9. The Petitioner’s case is that his wife passed away due to nonavailability of timely transport to a hospital in view of the hindrance created by the tehbazari vendors.

10. The authorities have an obligation to ensure that the delicate balance between all three categories of persons is maintained and citizens are not deprived of essential facilities such as movement in and out of residential colonies.

11. The photographs which are filed on record, some of which are extracted below, do show that the road is almost completely blocked with hardly any space for vehicular movement. Some images are set out below:

12. It is further alleged in the Petition that there are private individuals collecting ‘Protection Money’, from hawkers to permit vending activities. This is a cause for concern. Unscrupulous individuals cannot be permitted to collect money at the behest of permitting vending activities. This is contrary to law and a thorough enquiry would therefore be required into this matter.

13. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and the Deputy Commissioner (MCD) of the concerned area shall conduct a joint thorough inquiry in respect of the weekly market in Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi including the allegation of collection of protection money from hawkers to permit them to vend. A report shall be placed before this Court.

14. The MCD shall ensure that only those vendors who are duly licenced by the MCD shall be allowed to vend in the weekly market. In addition, the circular which is placed on record dated 30th December, 2009 clearly provides that the weekly markets would be held once a week. The said circular reads as under: “ …. The Weekly Market would be held once a week on the day on which the market/markets are closed in that area.”

15. Let the Deputy Commissioner (MCD) take a decision on the aspect of continuation of Saturday weekly market and if so in what manner. Let strict guidelines be framed and a report be placed before this Court.