The appellant, President of the Manimajara Vyaapar Mandal, Chandigarh, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking removal of encroachments on public paths, roads and public property by fruit vendors, rehri vendors, hawkers, squatters and other vendors, alleging nuisance and traffic hazards. The High Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 each on the associations represented by the appellant. The appellant challenged that order before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2026.
The Supreme Court, after granting leave and staying the impugned judgment, directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh to file a personal affidavit. The affidavit disclosed that 1,024 challans had been issued between 1st August and 30th November 2025, all illegal street vendors had been removed, and only licensed vendors in the category of essential service providers or mobile vendors had been permitted to continue. The Court found these efforts appreciable but directed the State to file a further affidavit within two weeks, clarifying: (i) information available at designated vending zones; (ii) steps taken to actively support displaced vendors in transitioning to those zones; and (iii) awareness drives to redirect customers to designated areas. The matter was listed for 27th April 2026.
The Court laid down that the constitutional approach to competing rights between street vendors and residents is regulation, not blanket eviction. Clearly identified vending zones, transparent licensing, and regular consultations with vendor groups and resident welfare associations are the prescribed processes. Heavy-handed crackdowns, removal without warning, or use of heavy machinery to demolish semi-permanent structures offend the dignity guarantee under Article 21. The Court further held that once vendors are displaced through lawful encroachment drives and vending zones exist, the State bears an affirmative duty to support their transition — including public awareness drives to redirect their customer base — and that failure to do so renders the exercise punitive rather than regulatory. The Court referred to, without overruling, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, Sudhir Madan v. MCD, Gainda Ram v. MCD, and Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai.