IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Bhaji Pav Thru .Proprietor Satish Nekram Patel – Appellant
Versus
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3051 of 2019
Decided on : 31-01-2020
Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 226 – Petitioners are the local hawkers and the sellers of food items and were doing their respective business by keeping food stalls/Laaries in the street near law garden, Ahmedabad. The street in which the petitioners were carrying on their small eateries is having two compound walls, one is adjacent to Law garden itself whereas another is near NCC ground. According to the petitioners, they were earning their livelihood from their small business of eateries since last more than 40 years which was set up by their ancestors and such business were continued by their respective family members and heirs. Held – In view of the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are not entitled to any protection under the Act of 2014 from eviction from their place of business in street near Law Garden at Ahmedabad. However, in future, when respondent corporation develops any other area under the provisions of the Act of 2014, petitioners may make an application for considering their relocation which may be considered by the respondent corporation in accordance with law in view of peculiar facts of the case– Petition dismissed. (Para 13)
Facts of the Case:
Petitioners are the local hawkers and the sellers of food items and were doing their respective business by keeping food stalls/Laaries in the street near law garden, Ahmedabad. The street in which the petitioners were carrying on their small eateries is having two compound walls, one is adjacent to Law garden itself whereas another is near NCC ground.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners may make an application for considering their relocation which may be considered by the respondent corporation in accordance with law in view of peculiar facts of the case.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. By this petition under Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the action of the respondents of evicting the petitioners from their place of business from where they are running their business since last more than 40 years and the action of seizure of the belongings of the petitioners as illegal, violative of provisions of the Act of 2014, the Scheme framed thereunder, the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, etc. and further be pleased to declare the same as null and void.
(c) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition or in the nature of mandamus or prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents from creating any hurdles, obstruction, objections etc. through its employees, agents, officers etc. for the petitioners to carry out and run their business of eatery from the place from where they were running their business since last more than 40 years.
(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to release and handover all the belongings along with their documents and cash amount forthwith enabling the petitioners to run their business for their livelihood.
(e) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition, or in the nature of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to evict, restrain, confiscate the belongings etc. from the place of their business without following the due procedure law.
(f) Pending the admission and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the respondents from creating hurdles, obstruction, objection etc. against the petitioners from conducting their business from the place of their business near Law Garden.
(g) To pass such other and further orders as are necessary in the interest of justice.”
2. Facts giving rise to this petition can be summarised as under :
(2.1) The petitioners are the local hawkers and the sellers of food items and were doing their respective business by keeping food stalls/Laaries in the street near law garden, Ahmedabad. The street in which the petitioners were carrying on their small eateries is having two compound walls, one is adjacent to Law garden itself whereas another is near NCC ground. According to the petitioners, they were earning their livelihood from their small business of eateries since last more than 40 years which was set up by their ancestors and such business were continued by their respective family members and heirs.
(2.2) It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid street near Law garden in Ahmedabad where the petitioners used to carry their business was popularly known as “Khau Gali” and was running for more than 40 years in the city of Ahmedabad. According to the petitioners, petitioners were facing various issues and objections since last many years pertaining to the place and area of their business and several petitions were filed before this Court and even Civil Suit was filed before the City Civil Court against the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
(2.3) The Regular Civil Suit was filed in the Civil Court in the year 1987. Special Civil Application No.4171/1989 was filed in the year 1989 and a Civil Application No.1669/1991 in Misc. Civil Application No.941/1991 in Special Civil Application No.4171/1989 was filed in the year 1991. According to the petitioners in both these matters, this Court had passed an order asking the petitioners to make representation to the respondent Corporation pertaining to accommodation and permission for doing and carrying on the business in the aforesaid area i.e. street near Law garden. The petitioners relied upon such orders as s
Devendra Jashubhai Raval v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 2001 (2) GLH 414
Bombay Hawkers’ Union vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 528
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545
Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1989) 4 SCC 155
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation
Gainda Ram vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010) 10 SCC 715
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.