Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J.
The Guntur Footpath & Thopudu Veedhiballu Chiruvyaparula Snagham – Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Developments and five others - Respondents.
Writ Petition No.3865 of 2020
Decided on : 16-02-2021
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 – Sections 21, 27, 33 – Rights of the “street vendors” – Traditional dispute between the right to carry on the trade to earn livelihood; and the reasonability of the actions of the State in restraining trade is once again raised in this Writ Petition. – Rights of the “street vendors” have received the consideration of the highest courts of the land. – As rightly submitted the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India itself in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and Another Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Others, C.A. Supreme Court of India, which is filed as a material paper held that for the last 28 years the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has struggled to find a workable solution to the problems of street vendors and other sections of society. – Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took into consideration their conditions of life; their contribution to the economy, to the general public etc., and granted them certain reliefs in the form of directions. – Then an Act called “The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 has come into force. – Despite this Act 7 of 2014 and its stipulations, the complaint made in this writ is that the street vendors are being treated with scant respect and are being unreasonably evicted.
Finding of court: Factually this Court agrees with the learned counsel for the petitioner that this particular market at Lalapet is not declared as a ‘non-vending zone’. – It does not find place either in the red zone or in the amber zone. – The mere fact that the petitioners were conducting business on the road margins is not by itself a ground to forcibly evict them. The definitions of “vending zone” includes a foot path, side walk, pavement, embankment etc. – Therefore, unless and until the area has been declared as a no vending zone in terms of Section 21 of the Act 7 of 2014 and first schedule etc., and the other provisions are complied with the petitioner’s members have a right to carry on their business. – Terms and conditions of their licenses should also specify this. – It is hoped that the plan for street vending under Section 21 of the Act 7 of 2014 read with the First Schedule will be carefully prepared balancing the needs of the vendors, the general public/commuters, right to use roads free flow of traffic etc. – In the facts of this case that the petitioners have made out a case for interference. – Court also holds that the Association has the right to espouse the cause of its members.
Result: Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
1. The traditional dispute between the right to carry on the trade to earn livelihood; and the reasonability of the actions of the State in restraining trade is once again raised in this Writ Petition.
2. The rights of the “street vendors” have received the consideration of the highest courts of the land. As rightly submitted the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India itself in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and Another Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Others, C.A.Nos.4156-4157 of 2002 Supreme Court of India, which is filed as a material paper held that for the last 28 years the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has struggled to find a workable solution to the problems of street vendors and other sections of society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took into consideration their conditions of life; their contribution to the economy, to the general public etc., and granted them certain reliefs in the form of directions. Then an Act called “The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (in short “the Act 7 of 2014”) has come into force. Despite this Act 7 of 2014 and its stipulations, the complaint made in this writ is that the street vendors are being treated with scant respect and are being unreasonably evicted.
3. The petitioners before this Court are “The Guntur Footpath & Thopudi Veedhiballu Chiruvyaparula Sangham”, (The Guntur Footpath, Push Carts, Hawkers Association). The petitioner society is espousing the cause of its members, who according to the writ affidavit, were unceremoniously evicted from a vending area in the market, where they are vending the fruits. The City Planner along with the officials of the Municipal Corporation and the Station House Officer accompanied by the members of the Police force have unceremoniously thrown away the fruits etc., that are being traded by the vendors. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statutory rights which are given to them under the Act 7 of 2014 have been totally neglected/violated and that despite having valid licenses; without following the stipulated due process of law the members of the petitioner Association have been forcibly evicted from their legitimate place of business. Learned counsel points out that the rights of the street vendors have been receiving attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India since decades. He points out that in Saghir Ahmad v State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728, the importance of the street vendor in our economy has been judicially recognized. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that right to carry on a trade or the business can also be regulated but he points out that in a series of other judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken a compassionate view and allowed the street vendors to eke out their livelihood subject to certain restrictions. The importance of the street vendors and their contribution to the economy and to the general public has been recognized by the highest Courts according to Sri Rajareddy Koneti learned counsel for the petitioner. He argues that since there was no law in place, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided that the policy that was existing as in 2009 was directed to be adopted as the rules and regulations and the law governing the subject. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union case, learned counsel explained the history and also the regulations in this area of trade and pointed out that like in any trade, subject to reasonable restrictions, street vendors were allowed to carry on their trade. Coming to the provisions of the Act 7 of 2014, learned counsel argues that every street vendor has a right to conduct his business as per the law. He draws the attention of this Court to the procedure prescribed for the relocation and eviction of the street vendors. He argues that even if the present vendors do not have a valid trade licenses or certificates t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
