WP/42840/2015 of Shaik Khaleel, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2015

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.42840 of 2015

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief/s:- “….to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondent authorities in

(i) not formulating any rules and not appointing anyTown Vending Committee under Section 22, RedressalMechanism under Section 20 of the Street Vendors(Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of StreetVending) Act, 2014;

(ii) not issuing certificate of vending to the petitionersunder Section 4 of the Street Vendors (Protection ofLivelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act,2014; and

(iii) evicting the petitioners without notice bydemolishing the structures of the petitioners contraryto the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection ofLivelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act,2014; as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against norms of publicpolicy and principles of natural justice and contrary to theprovisions of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood andRegulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and consequently todirect the respondent authorities to implement the provisionsof the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulationof Street Vending) Act, 2014 to the petitioners by permittingthem to continue to do their street vending situated on theroad margin leading from Balaji Cinema Hall Junction i.e.,Ambedkar Statue Junction to Simhachalam Meda Junction(via) Ranjani Cinema Theatre and to pass such other order ororders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in theinterest of justice.”

(Reproduced Verbatim)

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the writpetitioners and the learned standing counsel for the 2[nd]respondent-Vizianagaram Municipality who had taken notice. I haveperused the material record.

3. As per the submissions, the grievance of the writ petitioners, inbrief, is that they are all petty vendors; and that they have installed their small temporary baddies/shops about 40 to 50 years back; and thatthey are eking out their livelihoods by carrying out their respectivebusinesses in the said baddies; and that the said small baddies areerected in an area, admeasuring 10 feet - East to West and 5 feetSouth to North, on the road margin leading from Balaji Cinema HallJunction i.e., Ambedkar Statue Junction to Simhachalam MedaJunction via Ranjani Cinema Theatre, Vizianagaram; and that the 2[nd]respondent-Municipality on the pretext of widening the road isintending to demolish their shops/baddies even without issuing anotice; and that there is no necessity for widening the road at thatplace; and that they being petty vendors, their rights are protectedunder the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation ofStreet Vending) Act, 2014 (‘the Act’ for short); and that unless a TownVending Committee is formed and their rights are determined as perthe provisions of the said Act, the respondent Municipality is notentitled to proceed against their small baddies; and that they are allentitled to the benefits of the beneficial provisions of the said Act.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners while makingsubmissions in line with the pleadings had submitted that in view ofthe provisions of the said Act, the petitioners, who are stationeryvendors are entitled to the protection under the provisions of the saidAct and that the 2[nd] respondent-Municipality is not entitled to proceedagainst their baddies, except in accordance with the procedureestablished by law.

5. The learned standing counsel for the 2[nd] respondent-Municipalitywould submit that admittedly the baddies of the petitioners are situatedon the road margin; and there is no proposal for road widening atpresent; there is no cause of action for the petitioners and that the writpetition is filed on mere apprehensions; and the rights of the petitionersare not governed by the provisions of the said Act; and that nevertheless the 2[nd] respondent-Municipality would proceed againstthe petitioners in accordance with the procedure established by law, incase it is necessary.

6. Recording the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel forthe parties, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondentnot to take any coercive steps including demolition of the smallbaddies of the writ petitioners except in strict accordance with theprocedure established by law and without considering thesubmissions of the petitioners that their rights are governed by theStreet Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of StreetVending) Act, 2014, in case the provisions of the said Act areapplicable to the subject baddies/shops of the petitioners. There shallbe no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thewrit petition shall stand closed.

______________________

M.Seetharama Murti, J

31[st] December, 2015

Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (b/o) cbs