S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Oral)

1. Issue notice in LPA 303/2016, 305/2016, 310/2016, 312/2016 & 315/2016. Mr. Harsha Peechara, Advocate appears for the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereafter referred to as "NDMC") and Mr. Satyakam, Advocate who appears for Govt. of NCT of Delhi accepts notice for it. In all other appeals, notices had been issued previously. With consent of the counsel for the parties all these matters have been taken up for hearing.

2. The common question which arises for consideration in these appeals, is the true interpretation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereafter called "the Act"). This enactment appears to be the first legislative measure to secure livelihoods of urban street vendors in public spaces in the cities and towns in India and at the same time, outlining the regulatory concerns which municipal and local authorities are to keep in mind, while ensuring that the members of the general public are not inconvenienced. In one sense, the Act is a first as far as it gives effect to the right to livelihood of street vendors, which had been declared by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council (1989) 4 SCC 155.

3. All appellants in these proceedings are aggrieved by various orders and judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court which had rejected their writ petitions. They had claimed directions to not be disturbed from continuing trade and carrying on business in the places where they were vending on public spaces (i.e pavements, etc). According to the appeal averments the appellants are vendors functioning in various New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) areas such as Palika Bazar, Janpath, Baba Kharag Singh Marg and Sarojini Nagar. They claim entitlement to be treated as street vendors under the Act. Substantial reliance is placed upon Section 3 (3) of the Act by the appellants who say that they are existing vendors, who cannot- till the completion of a survey in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act- be evicted or in any way disturbed from plying their trade. It is urged that the scheme of enactment ie. Section 2 (l) and 2 (m), define who are vendors (i.e those who vend articles, goods, wares, food items or merchandise in certain common public spaces such as streets, lanes, sidewalks, footpath, pavement etc). The appellants urge that they cannot be disturbed until the survey is carried out by the appropriate authority, i.e., Town Vending Committee ("TVC") - constituted under Section 22 of the Act.

4. The appellants rely upon various previous proceedings arising out of writ petitions filed by many of them and say that they had carried on business as street vendors/tehbazariright holders- a fact known to the respondents especially the NDMC; that with the coming into force of the enactment, unless there is two-fold survey as to the feasibility of the area or areas and spaces where vending is permitted and there is settlement of rights of vendors, the existing status quoshould continue. The appellants also rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai & Ors., 2014 (1) SCC 490 (Maharashtra Ekta-4). It is contended that the Supreme Court had noticed the previous binding rulings particularly the Constitution Bench judgment in Sodan Singh v. NDMC, (1989) 4 SCC 155, Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai 2004(1) SCC 625, (Maharashtra Ekta-1), Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai (2009) 17 SCC 151, (Maharashtra Ekta-2), Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai (2009) 17 SCC 231 (Maharashtra Ekta-3). It is submitted that the cumulative effect of all these decisions was consolidated in the form of directions uniformly applicable to all urban authorities in the entire country, in Maharashtra Ekta-4.

5. The appellants par