Section 3. Survey of street vendors and protection from eviction or relocation
(1) The Town Vending Committee shall, within such period and in such manner as may be specified in the scheme, conduct a survey of all existing street vendors, within the area under its jurisdiction, and subsequent survey shall be carried out at least once in every five years.
(2) The Town Vending Committee shall ensure that all existing street vendors, identified in the survey, are accommodated in the vending zones subject to a norm conforming to two and half per cent. of the population of the ward or zone or town or city, as the case may be, in accordance with the plan for street vending and the holding capacity of the vending zones.
(3) No street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under sub-section (1) has been completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors.
How courts have applied section 3
- Eviction or demolition cannot proceed without completing the statutory survey and issuing vending certificates.1,2
- A completed survey will not be reopened at the instance of a vendor who missed it; they may participate in future surveys.3,4
- A survey report is not discarded without compelling reason, and vendors not found vending in the zone may be excluded.5,6
- Vendors holding licences or identity cards are protected under Section 3, particularly if no alternative site is provided.7
- Courts require a specific violation to intervene under Article 226; general allegations of harassment are insufficient if the Act is being implemented.8,9
- Eligibility to hawk does not automatically confer voting rights in Town Vending Committee elections; individual scrutiny is required.10,11
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern the protection from eviction and the survey process under Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. Courts have repeatedly held that municipal authorities cannot evict vendors without first complying with the Act's survey and certification requirements, and have directed authorities to conduct surveys, identify vending zones, and provide reasoned hearings. However, protection is not absolute: eviction has been upheld where the vendor was not found in the survey, where the area was declared a no-vending zone, or where the eviction had already been carried out.1,2,7,5,12,13
A recurring question is whether a completed survey can be reopened. Courts in these orders have declined to reopen surveys that were already concluded, even where vendors missed the survey for personal reasons, instead directing them to participate in future surveys. Similarly, where a survey found a vendor not vending in the designated zone, courts found no reason to discard the survey report. In some cases, courts dismissed petitions for lack of specific violation or because the Act provides adequate safeguards, with no Article 226 intervention warranted absent actual infringement.3,4,5,6,8,9,14
Courts have also addressed the effect of vending certificates and identity cards. Vendors holding licences or identity cards were protected from eviction under Section 3, especially where no alternative site had been provided. Conversely, a squatter without a certificate could not claim protection if the area was declared non-hawking. In contempt proceedings, courts took note of Town Vending Committee meetings and communications issued to vendors, but did not find wilful disobedience where directions were complied with.7,15,16,17
Finally, in the context of the Act's broader scheme, courts have upheld the validity of voter lists and elections for Town Vending Committees, ruling that eligibility to hawk does not automatically confer voting rights, and that publication of a voters' list, though delayed, satisfied the rules if no prejudice was shown. Courts have also noted that regulation and allotment of vending spaces lies within the Committee's discretion, and no individual can insist on a particular place.10,11,12
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
The High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Bilaspur to conduct a survey of street vendors in the Koni area and identify vending zones under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, and Scheme, 2016. The Court ordered a hearing and reasoned decision before eviction, with interim protection maintained.
DisposedOpenAllahabad High Court Division Bench (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.) disposed of Writ-C No. 18886 of 2026 (Gopal Kumar and 14 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others) on 14.05.2026.
Delhi HC, W.P.(C) 243/2026, Dinesh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation Delhi & Ors., decided 08.01.2026 (Prathiba M. Singh J., with Madhu Jain J.). Keywords: street vending; Certificate of Vending (COV); Town Vending Committee; survey receipt URI No. 7843487 dated 03.02.2021; no-vending zone; Kamla Nagar Market;
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenSarojini Nagar Market vendor; New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) street-vendor survey; inclusion in survey and verification prayer; digitised survey process; no physical survey register; petitioner's photograph as sole proof; photograph repeated in other cases; survey meeting 20 June 2025; survey concluded July 2025;
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenDelhi High Court (Division Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain), by order dated 06.04.2026 in W.P.(C) 4373/2026, disposed of street vendor Suman's Article 226 petition seeking directions to NDMC to conduct a fresh survey and issue a Certificate of Vending for her fruit-and-vegetable vending site…
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenStreet vendor eviction Nehru Place No-vending No-hawking zone Mansarovar Building Bachchu Singh Rama Kant v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi W.P.(C) 3758/2026 Delhi High Court 24.03.2026 Article 226 third writ petition Manushi Sangathan LPA 766/2008 67 vendors 85 protected vendors Thareja Committee 1992 Chopra…
Writ Petition (Civil)Open
Show 6 more
Contempt petition by a resident complaining of street-vendor encroachments blocking access in Kadayanallur, heard with writ petitions by street vendors seeking vending committees and zones under the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
DisposedOpenStreet vendors; Trichy Municipal Corporation; District Collector Tiruchirappalli; street vendor identity card; licence; footpath; encroachment; Section 3; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014; restraint from eviction; no alternative site; writ of mandamus; Article 226;
DisposedOpenWrit Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) by 40 street vendors of N.S.B. Road, Trichy against dismissal of writ petition challenging eviction following Town Vending Committee resolution declaring the area a non-vending zone;
DismissedOpenStreet vendors; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including Section 3(3); non-implementation; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Telangana; GHMC Town Vending Committee; Cyberabad police harassment, fine, eviction, confiscation; TSIIC;
DisposedOpenStreet Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014; non-implementation of statute; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Telangana High Court; GHMC Town Vending Committee; harassment by fine, eviction, confiscation; Section 3(3) Street Vendors Act;
DisposedOpenStreet vendors sought a mandamus directing implementation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 and restraint against police harassment. Respondents contended the Act was being implemented with no specific violation shown.
DisposedOpen
Allahabad High Court Division Bench (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.) disposed of Writ-C No. 18886 of 2026 (Gopal Kumar and 14 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others) on 14.05.2026.
Khazana Vyapar Mandal Society Thru. Chairman/Auth. Representative Shivram Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others
Outcome: Dismissedstreet vendors; no vending zone; vending zone; Nagar Nigam; survey pending; Section 21(2) read with Para 3(e) First Schedule; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014; PIL dismissed for want of statutory pleadings; liberty to file afresh; Khazana Vyapar Mandal Society;
DismissedOpenChander Kesh Vs Robin Baleja, Chief Executive Officer (Ceo), Delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.
Contempt Case (Civil)Delhi High Court, Sachin Datta, J, order dated 23.03.2026 disposing of contempt petitions CONT.CAS(C) 313/2026, 314/2026, 316/2026 (Sonu, Chander Kesh, Dinesh) alleging wilful disobedience of writ orders dated 01.12.2025 (W.P(C) 18126/2025; W.P(C) 18175/2025) and 28.11.2025 (W.P(C) 18058/2025).
Contempt Case (Civil)OpenSonu Vs Robin Baleja, Chief Executive Officer (Ceo), Delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.
Contempt Case (Civil)Delhi High Court contempt cases CONT.CAS(C) 313/2026, 314/2026, 316/2026 with CM APPL. 18003/2026, 18004/2026, 18002/2026; street vendors Sonu, Chander Kesh and Dinesh versus Robin Baleja, CEO, Delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.;
Contempt Case (Civil)OpenAll India Trade Union Congress Hawkers Union vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Outcome: DisposedStreet Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014; S.22(2)(d) TVC elections Mumbai 29-08-2024; Rule 15 Maharashtra Street Vendors Rules 2016 voters list objections; 99,435 hawkers 2014 survey; 29,008 verification four months; Azad Hawkers Union WP 652/2017 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10261;
DisposedOpenJanwadi Hawkers Sabha Th. President K. Narayan vs Town Vedning Committee-Mcgm Th. Its Chairperson
Outcome: DisposedHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram A.S. Gadkari & Kamal Khata, JJ.; reserved 11.02.2026, pronounced 23.03.2026. Cluster of seven writ petitions (plus two interim applications) by hawker unions and vendor groups challenging the Registered Voters' List (electorate c.
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Colaba Causeway Tourism Hawkers Stall Union vs State of Maharashtra Th. Urban Development Dept.
Outcome: DisposedBombay High Court (A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, JJ.), judgment pronounced 23.03.2026 - connected writ petitions (lead WP(L) 29339/2024; WP 3690/2025, WP 3700/2025, WP(L) 7275/2025, WP(L) 25070/2024, WP 727/2025, WP(L) 4024/2025, WP(L) 4022/2025, IA(L) 8953/2025, IA(L) 9689/2025) by Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union,…
DisposedOpenContempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of directions in an earlier writ concerning street vending under certificates issued per the Street Vendors Act. MCD assured no interference with vending done strictly per certificate terms. Delay in re-filing condoned and petition disposed of with no further orders.
Contempt Case (Civil)OpenAll India Trade Union Congress Hawkers Union vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Outcome: DisposedStreet Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014; S.22(2)(d) TVC elections Mumbai 29-08-2024; Rule 15 Maharashtra Street Vendors Rules 2016 voters list objections; 99,435 hawkers 2014 survey; 29,008 verification four months; Azad Hawkers Union WP 652/2017 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10261;
DisposedOpenJanwadi Hawkers Sabha Th. President K. Narayan vs Town Vedning Committee-Mcgm Th. Its Chairperson
Outcome: DisposedHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram A.S. Gadkari & Kamal Khata, JJ.; reserved 11.02.2026, pronounced 23.03.2026. Cluster of seven writ petitions (plus two interim applications) by hawker unions and vendor groups challenging the Registered Voters' List (electorate c.
DisposedOpen
Related subjects
- Pension and Retirement Benefits14,16,919
- Service and Employment19,79,808
- Constitutional and Fundamental Rights21,58,139