Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 1576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel, JJ.
Hari Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 2328 , 2330, 2331, 2333, 2334 of 2017, 2335 of 2017, 2336 of 2017, 2343 of 2017, 2344 of 2017, 2345 of 2017, 2346 of 2017, 2348 of 2017, 2349 of 2017, 2350 of 2017, 2352 of 2017, 2353 of 2017, 2354 of 2017, 2355 of 2017, 2356 of 2017, 2357 of 2017, 2358 of 2017, 2359 of 2017, 2361 of 2017, 2362 of 2017, 2363 of 2017, 2364 of 2017, 2365 of 2017, 2562 of 2017
Decided On : 07-04-2018
Ajay Vaidya, C.N Singh, Dalip K. Sharma, Ranjan Sharma, V.B Verma, Advocates for the appearing parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proper implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, including the rights and obligations of street vendors, the constitution of Town Vending Committees, and the mechanism for relocation and eviction of street vendors.
Headnote:
Street Vendors - Protection of Livelihood - Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2004 - Chapter-II, Section 22; Chapter-VII, Section 3; Chapter-III, Section 12; Chapter-VI - The judgment discusses the rights and obligations of street vendors under the Act, the constitution of Town Vending Committees, the issuance of vending certificates, and the mechanism for relocation and eviction of street vendors.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a street vendor, sought relocation and damages for the illegal demolition of his vending structure. The respondents claimed that the petitioners were encroachers and had no right or license to set up vending structures at the location. The court considered the rights of the petitioners under the Street Vendors Act and the issue of relocation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not have the right to continue occupying the location in question, but raised the issue of where the vendors would go. It emphasized the provisions of the Street Vendors Act and the obligations of street vendors, while also highlighting the misconceptions and misinterpretations of the Act by the authorities.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rights of street vendors under the Street Vendors Act, the obligations of the authorities, and the need for proper implementation of the Act's provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, including the constitution of Town Vending Committees, issuance of vending certificates, and the mechanism for relocation and eviction of street vendors. It highlighted the misconceptions and misinterpretations of the Act by the authorities and the need for proper enforcement of the Act.
Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to re-examine and revisit the provisions of the Act for strict enforcement, correctly identify all street vendors, adhere to vending zones, issue vending licenses, evict unauthorized persons, and relocate identified street vendors. It left the adjudication of the status and rights of the petitioners to the authorities, with a deadline for establishing their rights and entitlements under the Act.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —All these petitions are being disposed of vide common judgment. Facts and issues being similar and identical, we are dealing with the facts of CWP No.2352 of 2017, titled as Hari Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following common reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to the effect that the petitioner be immediately re-located as per the provision of Street Vendor (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2004.
(ii) Further respondents are directed to pay damages to the Petitioner for the illegal demolition of reharis/kokhas without complying the provisions of street vendor act."
3. Petitioner alleges that despite holding licence for setting up Tehbazari Rehadi, issued by the Municipal Council, Parwanoo, he even as "street vendor", is being ejected, without following due process of law and all this despite the matter having been brought to the notice of the concerned Police Officers, vide representation dated 9.5.2017 (Annexure P-4) .
4. For the last about 26 years, Nagar Panchayat/ Municipal Council, Parwanoo, has been issuing licences for setting up Khokhas/Rehadis. 40 such Khokhas/ Rehadis were set up on the National Highway-22, near new HIMUDA Complex and Rehadi Market, Parwanoo.
5. On 9.5.2017, without any proper notice, HIMUDA demolished 32 Khokhas by using force and petitioners also apprehend similar action, for they cannot be removed, save and except, in accordance with the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .
6. Respondent No.3 (HIMUDA) has filed replyaffidavit, clearly stating that petitioners are encroachers over public land. Also, petitioners have no right or licence to set up Rehadis at the place(s) in question. Prior to the widening of the National Highway and construction of the Commercial Complex, 25 moving Rehadis, which were actually parked, were got removed. Also, general notice dated 2.2.2017 was issued to all the encroachers, asking them to vacate this portion of the encroached land.
7. From the record, in this regard, it is evident that even the Civil Court(s) have vacated interim orders passed in civil proceedings initiated by the encroachers.
8. It is in this backdrop, respondents No.1 & 2 adopt the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3.
9. At the threshold, we may clarify that petitioners do not have any right to continue to occupy the place in question, i.e. property of HIMUDA/Municipal Council, Parwanoo, near Punjab National Bank, Sector-1, Parwanoo, and as such they must immediately vacate the same.
10. However, the issue, which arises for consideration, is as to where would they go.
11. We are informed that place for relocation of ''street vendors'', as defined under the provisions of the Act and identified by the Vending Committee, stands earmarked. It is in Sectors 1 and 2 of Parwanoo. The proposal for development of the same stands recommended to the State Government and money for executing the lease deed stands deposited with HIMUDA.
12. But, the issue is larger and requires deeper consideration. From the copy of licence placed on record, one notices that the petitioner(s) are not residents of the State and it is not that the Municipal Council, Parwanoo, had been issuing licence(s) in their favour, continuously over a period of more than 2-3 decades, as is so averred by them. In the case of one such writ petitioner, i.e. Hari Ram, we find the licence to have been issued only in the year 2014- 15, and the said writ petitioner hails from the State of Bihar. The situation with regard to the other petitioners is more or less similar. Thus, the question, which arises for consideration, is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the protection/benefits under the Act or not?
13. We now proceed to examine the rights of the petitioners.
14. As is evident fr
