P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Petitioners are the street vendors doing their business of selling Ice-creams, Fast Foods, Fruit Chats, Chat Bandar etc., near the children park in Kurnool. According to the petitioners, they were granted licences as early as in the year 1995 and they have been doing this business to eke out their livelihood all through. They were granted licences by the municipal corporation and collecting annual licence fee from the petitioners. Petitioners have subsisting licences. While so, municipal corporation is trying to forcibly dispossess them from the business premises No. 40 Peta, near children park even though licences were subsisting. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners have been doing their business since the year 1995 by paying licence fee to the municipal corporation and the licence is valid till March, 2016 and, therefore, before expiry of licence period, petitioners cannot be removed from the place where the business is being carrying out. Learned counsel further submits, in response to averments in the counter-affidavit, that the licences were granted to them after satisfying the quality of food being supplied by the petitioners and contrary to the licences granted, vague statement is made that the food supplied by the petitioners is dangerous and said statement is without any basis. They were never put on notice on such allegation.

4. Learned counsel further contends that having granted licences to operate vending units near the children park, it is not permissible for the respondent corporation to remove the vending units. He further submits that though in W.P. No. 28966 of 2011, this Court directed to remove the vending units after 31.3.2012 on the premise that the licence granted to the petitioners was valid till that day only, subsequently the licences were renewed from time to time and the petitioners have valid licences subsisting and as long as valid licences subsisting, they are entitled to undertake the business. He further submits that subsequent to the disposal of the said writ petition by this Court, the entire issue was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and another v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and others and gave several directions. These directions issued by the Supreme Court are violated in this case. Subsequent to the above judgment, Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short, Act 7 of 2014) is enacted. Consequent to the above enactment, the street vending has been regulated strictly in terms of the provisions contained therein and present action of throwing the petitioners out of place where petitioners are carrying out their livelihood is in violation of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, illegal.

5. Respondent corporation filed counter-affidavit.

6. Relying on the averments made in the counter-affidavit, learned standing counsel Sri S.D. Goud submits that petitioners were not granted licence to undertake sale of food products near children park. He further submits that petitioners have suffered order by this Court in W.P. No. 28966 of 2011 and in accordance with the orders contained therein, petitioners are not entitled to carry on business at the present place after 31.03.2012. He further submits that respondent corporation has been preventing the petitioners from undertaking the vending of food products after March, 2012. Whenever it came to the notice of the respondent corporation that stalls are put up near the children park, the corporation has taken steps to remove. On 20.03.2015 the last time the bunks were removed. Along with counter affidavit, photographs are filed showing the removal of bunks. Learned standing counsel contends that licence granted to the petitioners to do business is anywhere within the territorial juris