Bela M. Trivedi, J.

The petitioners in the instant petition claiming themselves to be the "street vendors" have sought protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") for restraining the respondent No.2 from demolishing/removing their alleged constructions of shops and food stalls known as "Khetl apa Chawk" situated opposite to Karnavati Club, S. G. Road, Ahmedabad, pursuant to the notice dated 9.7.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 260(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "GPMC Act").

2. The petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner of Khetl apa Tea Stall, petitioner No.2 claims to be the owner of Indian Tadka, petitioner No.3 of Rumi Juice, petitioner No.4 of Jalaram Khaman, petitioner No.5 of Jaysingh Bhajiya, petitioner No.6 of Jilani Chat, and petitioner No.7 of Vimal Delux Pan Parlor, situated at the said "Khetl apa Chawk".

3. At the outset, it may be stated that the petitioner No.1 Vakatar Samatbhai Ghusabhai had earlier filed the petition being Special Civil Application No.10575 of 2018, seeking urgent circulation of the petition on the same day, on the ground that the Corporation had sought to remove his construction of Khetl apa Tea Stall without following the due process of law. In the said petition, he had filed certain documents to show that "Khetl apa" was a trade mark registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in January 2018 for the goods and services as mentioned therein. The said documents also included the certificate of incorporation of "Khetl apa Food Products Pvt. Ltd." issued on 13.2.2018, incorporating the said Company under Section 7(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. During the course of the hearing of the said petition, an amendment was sought by the learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioner, running into the pages more than the original petition changing the very nature of original petition. Since the Court was not inclined to grant the said amendment, the learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya sought permission to withdraw the said petition with liberty to file fresh petition. The Court had granted the said permission. Now the present petition has been filed by the said petitioner of the earlier petition along with the other six petitioners claiming themselves to be the owners of the shops and stalls as mentioned earlier, known as "Khetl apa Chawk", posing themselves to be the "street vendors" and seeking protection under the said Act.

4. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that after filing of the petition on 12.7.2018, the learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya kept on seeking time for one or the other reason. When the Court insisted for hearing of the matter on 24.7.2018 during the recalling of the petition in the second round, with great reluctance he argued the matter. Mr. Deep Vyas who was appearing for the respondent No.2 on the advance copy served to him was also heard. He has placed on record the copy of the earlier petition being Special Civil Application No.10575 of 2018 for the perusal of the Court.

5. On perusing the contents of the earlier petition filed by the petitioner No.1 and the contents of the present petition, it clearly transpires that the petitioners in the present petition have not stated the true and correct facts and suppressed the material facts. The petitioners having not come with clean hands, the present petition, deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. However, the learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioners having made elaborate submissions on the merits of the case in the light of the provisions contained in the Street Vendors Act, and having relied upon various judgments of this Court and Supreme Court in support of his submissions, Court deems it proper to decide the petition on merits also.

6. From the averments made in the petition, it appears that the petitioners are carrying on the