Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
Central Park Food Truckers Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Greater Visakhapatnam Muncipal Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
Writ PetitionNo. 9798 of 2022
Decided On : 28-04-2022
STREET VENDORS - PROTECTION OF LIVELIHOOD - RIGHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS - VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - NIGHT FOOD COURTS - PERMISSION DENIAL - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING STREET VENDORS - LEGAL RIGHT INFRINGEMENT - INTERNAL PROCEEDINGS - STREET VENDORS DEFINITION - ACT 7 OF 2014 - SECTION 3, 12, 13 - SURVEY, CERTIFICATE OF VENDING, RELOCATION RIGHTS - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARRY ON TRADE OR PROFESSION - MANDAMUS ISSUANCE - REASONABLE TIME FOR APPLICATION PROCESSING - POSITIVE CONSIDERATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner association, representing street vendors, sought permission to restart night food courts in Visakhapatnam after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Municipal Commissioner rejected their application without providing any reason, prompting the association to file a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was maintainable, as the association could represent its members and the right to carry on trade or profession was a fundamental right. The court also found that the petitioner association fell within the definition of street vendors under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (Act 7 of 2014).
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the writ petition filed by an association representing street vendors. 2. Whether the denial of permission to restart night food courts infringed the fundamental right to carry on trade or profession. 3. Applicability of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, to the petitioner association. 4. Scope of judicial intervention in internal proceedings of authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on previous judgments to establish that an association can maintain a writ petition on behalf of its members, especially when a common grievance exists and access to justice is sought through collective proceedings. 2. The court held that the right to carry on trade or profession is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and any infringement of this right can be challenged through a writ petition. 3. The court interpreted the definitions of "street vendor," "mobile vendor," and "stationary vendor" under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, and concluded that the petitioner association, which operated food courts in a designated area, fell within the ambit of street vendors. 4. The court recognized that internal departmental communications and notings do not have the sanction of law and cannot create enforceable rights. However, it noted that the Municipal Commissioner's recommendation to consider restarting the food court, though an internal proceeding, was relevant to the extent that it demonstrated the authorities' awareness of the issue.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner association to file an application under Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, to the concerned authority. The authority was ordered to process the application within three weeks and consider it positively, recognizing the fundamental right to carry on business.
JUDGMENT
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondent Nos.1, 3, 5, 6 & 7 in not granting permission to the Writ Petitioners and other street vendors to re-start night food courts at service road, near old jail road, opposite to women's college, Visakhapatnam even after Covid-19 period is arbitrary, illegal and violative of articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Section 12 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) act, 2014 (in short, 'the act 7 of 2014') and consequently prayed to direct the respondents to grant necessary permissions to re-start night food courts.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner has formed into a Society and got it registered under Section 9 of Societies Registration act, 2001 in the name and style of Central Park Food Truckers Welfare association. They were eaking out their livelihood by carrying on the business of selling food items by obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. Basing on the direction issued by the 1st respondent vide order dated 18.03.2020 in Rc.No.47/2020H5UCD/GVMC, they have temporarily stopped the business due to Covid-19 pandemic.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner association made a representation in Spandana portal on 03.01.2022 requesting to permit to do business i.e., running of food courts at service road, near old jail road, opposite to women's college, Visakhapatnam etc as the Covid-19 pandemic has come to normalcy.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the 1st respondent-Municipal Commissioner has rejected the application made in Spandana portal, without assigning any reason.
4. aggrieved by the same, the petitioner association filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to run the night food courts. The matter was listed on 13.04.2022 for the first time. at the request of the counsel for the 1st respondent, the matter was again listed on 18.04.2022.
5. Heard both sides.
6. at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the 1st respondent raised the following contentions:-
i) The Writ Petition is not maintainable as it was filed by the association and he relied on the Order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ appeal No.91 of 2022 dated 15.03.2022.
ii) The Writ Petition is not maintainable as no Writ of Mandamus can be issued by this Court as there is no infringement of legal right and he relied on the judgment of this Court in 'Vadlamani Srinivas @ Srinivas V. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and two others. 2013 LawSuit (aP) 19'
(iii) The petitioner herein cannot rely on the internal proceedings of the authorities in the said context learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court (from Gouhati) (D.B.) in 'Union of India & Others V. Vartak Labour Union 2011 LawSuit (SC) 176'.
(iv) It is further stated that the petitioner association does come under the definition of street vendors as per the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) act, 2014.
Thus, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
First contention: Regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition by the association.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Writ Petition is maintainable as in similar circumstances this Court has allowed the Writ Petition and he relied on the Judgment of this Court in, 'Guntur Footpath & Thopudu Veedhiballu Chiruvyaparula Sangham V. State of andhra Pradesh (2021) 2 aLT 286.' He further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in, 'akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Represented by its assistant General Secretary on behalf of the association V. Union of India and others (1981) aIR SC 298' and prayed to allow the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to
The right to carry on trade or profession is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and any infringement of this right can be challenged through a writ petition.
Definition of ‘street vendors’ clearly mentions that they have to carry on business from a temporary built-up structure.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the Town Vending Committee to consider the petitioner's case during the survey in accordance with the relevant l....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the Town Vending Committee to consider the petitioner's case during the survey in accordance with the relevant l....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the Town Vending Committee to conduct a survey and issue certificates of vending in accordance with the provisions of the Stre....
The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Town Vending Committee to determine the petitioner's representation in accordance with the law.
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
