Public roads are not meant for private trade; vendors must operate within designated vending zones under applicable laws.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. SJ Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Nayak, learned standing counsel for the GMC, Mr. H Sarma, learned State counsel and Ms. G Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has expressed his grievance that the respondent No.4 has constructed a shop illegally on the road at the triangle of 1 bye lane of Dr. Bhupen Hazarika Path opposite to the residence of the petitioner, which is causing great inconvenience. According to him, despite several representations since 2019, the respondent authorities have done nothing to redress his grievances.

3. An affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), wherein it has been stated that the respondent No.4 is running her shop over a road under Dag No. 357, FS grant Patta No. 7 of revenue village Sahar Guwahati part-VI and though said land is a Patta land, a road had already been constructed over the said plot of land. The Deputy Commissioner has also annexed a report from the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, to the aforesaid fact.

4. It is the stand of the respondent No. 4 that the respondent No. 4 does not dispute running the shop on the road and that she is not the owner the land. It is the contention of the respondent No. 4 that such a shop is being run by the respondent No. 4 with a due trade license from the Guwahati Municipal Corporation. It is the further case of the respondent No. 4 that the respondent No.4’s trade license No. 169801 dated 09.02.2015 was cancelled by an order dated 16.02.2019 by the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, however, such cancellation was interfered by this court in WP(C) 1432/2019, preferred by the respondent No. 4, under order dated 06.03.2019, for the reason that such cancellation was without issuing any show cause notice. However, liberty was granted to the respondent GMC to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law. Subsequently, such a license was renewed on 01.12.2023, and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.4, the shop cannot be termed as illegal.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 while not disputing that the shop is constructed over the road, however, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sodan Singh & Ors. vs New Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in 1989 (4) SCC 155 contends that street vending is a fundamental right available to all citizens, subject only to Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, while a citizen has no right to choose a particular place or any street for trading, however, nobody can insist on keeping every inch of the street available for actual uses. According to the learned counsel, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if properly regulated, according to the exigencies of the circumstances, the small traders on sidewalks can considerably add to the comfort and convenience of the general public, by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. While concluding her argument, she submits that if the public is not prevented from ‘freely, safely and conveniently passing” the public road, a small trader can have a shop on the public road. Therefore, according to her, the respondent No. 4 has a fundamental right to continue with the shop on the public road, as there is nothing on record to suggest that it