The judgment established the importance of regulating street vendors while considering their livelihood and the need to balance public interests with the rights of street vendors.

1. The petitioner prayed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the second respondent's proceeding in Na.Ka.No.8899/2015/Pa6, dated 08.11.2017 and further to direct the fourth respondent to collect the rent from the petitioner's Association members.

2. The petitioner's Association, who are road side vendors and members of Sunset Bazaar Vyabarigal Nala Sangam, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent, dated 08.11.2017, wherein, the second respondent has directed the petitioner's Association to remove the encroached shops functioning without any permission. The petitioner's Association further claims that the Association consists of 27 members and they are doing business as roadside vendors in the seashore road as early as from the year 1980 onwards with the permission of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent seems to have issued receipts for the amounts collected from the Association members and they are doing business in the recognized place for vending. The petitioner further claims that initially, the fourth respondent had fixed the rent as Rs.50/- per day in the normal or off-season days, but in the season time, the fourth respondent used to collect three months rent ie., Rs.15,000/- separately from each members of the petitioner's Association. The members were further permitted to occupy the space for display of the selling products and they are not in default of payment for the past 40 years. However, during the year 2015, the fourth respondent had demanded higher rent for the place occupied by the members of the petitioner's Association, against which the petitioner's Association has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6776 of 2015 seeking the relief not to evict or shift the members of the petitioner's Association. In the said writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim injunction in favour of the petitioner's Association. However, since the fourth respondent disobeyed the order passed by this Court, a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.172 of 2015 was filed and thereafter, the fourth respondent obeyed the injunction order passed by this Court.

3. Under these circumstances, the fourth respondent had called for a tender with the other street vendors by way of excluding the petitioner's Association members and further allotted the space for street vending. In the meanwhile, W.P.No.6776 of 2015 was filed and this Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner's Association. However, the second respondent, without conducting any enquiry, proceeded to pass an order, dated 08.11.2017, by simply rejecting the petitioner's plea and the fourth respondent is now forcing the petitioner's Association members to evict them from the place of business, which they are doing for the past so many years. Challenging the said order passed by the second respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. Mr.R.Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of the fourth respondent is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Apart from that, the members of the petitioner's Association is protected under Street Vendors Act, 2014, wherein the respondents have failed to adhere to the procedures contemplated under the Act, which is a benevolent Act enacted for the benefits of the street vendors.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to Chapter II of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, in which, Section 3(3) states that “no street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under sub-Section (1) has been completed and the Certificate of Vending is issued to all street vendors”.

The learned counsel also pleaded that no forcible eviction can be done and dispossess the petitioner's Association members based on the impugned order, dated 08.11.