Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Suresh - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Madurai District – Respondent
WP(MD)Nos.12276 and 24098 of 2017 and WMP(MD)No.9435 of 2017
Decided On : 30-01-2024
STREET VENDING - REGULATION OF STREET VENDING - Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001; Tamil Nadu Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme and Rules, 2015 - The court discussed the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, emphasizing the need for a Town Vending Committee to identify vending and non-vending zones, and the authority of the Highways Department under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act to regulate encroachments on highways. The court highlighted the importance of balancing public convenience with the livelihood of street vendors, ultimately concluding that the petitioners were operating in a non-vending zone without proper authority, leading to the dismissal of their petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions were filed by Suresh, a tiffin shop owner, and the president of the Khaidae Millath Mattuthavani Bus Stand Street Vendors Welfare Association, seeking to prevent eviction from their shops at Mattuthavani Omni Bus Stand and to compel the formation of a Town Vending Committee as per the Street Vendors Act. The petitioners claimed to be licensed street vendors, but the respondents contended that the area was designated as a non-vending zone and that the licenses were issued without proper authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Assistant Commissioner of Police had improperly issued licenses to the petitioners, who were operating in a non-vending zone as declared by the Town Vending Committee. The court noted the lack of action from the authorities to remove unauthorized encroachments and emphasized the need for compliance with the legal framework governing street vending.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to operate their shops in a non-vending zone? 2. Did the Assistant Commissioner of Police have the authority to issue licenses for street vending in the area? 3. What actions should be taken against unauthorized encroachments on highways?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issuance of licenses by the Assistant Commissioner of Police was invalid as he lacked the authority to do so. The area around Mattuthavani Bus Stand was declared a non-vending zone, and the petitioners were not recognized as legitimate street vendors under the applicable laws. The court emphasized the need for the authorities to enforce the regulations set forth in the Street Vendors Act and the Tamil Nadu Highways Act.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, with directions for the petitioners to approach the Town Vending Committee for consideration of their status as street vendors and for the authorities to take necessary actions against unauthorized encroachments.
ORDER :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, their officials, subordinates and servants to disturb or interfere with the petitioner's business at Mattuthavani Omni bus stand tiffin centre 1 /200, Melur road Wd44, Madurai and Consequently direct the respondent No.3 to renew the petitioner's licence by considering the petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2017.
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respodent to constitute the Town Vending Commitee in terms of Section 22 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and consequently to forbear the 3rd respondent from illegally dispossessing the Street Vendors having shops situated out side the Mattuthavani bus stand, Madurai without following the due process of law by considering the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2017 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
The writ petition in WP(MD)No.12276 of 2017 is filed by one Suresh seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with his business (tiffin centre) at Mattuthavani Omni Bus Stand and to renew the licence of the petitioner by considering his representation dated 11.02.2017. The other writ petition in WP(MD)No.24098 of 2017 is filed by the president of Khaidae Millath Mattuthavani Bus Stand Street Vendors Welfare Association for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to form a committee as per Section 22 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and to forbear the respondents from dispossessing them from the shops run by them.
2.Since the subject matter in both writ petitions are same, both these writ petitions are heard together and disposed by this common order.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(MD)No.12276 of 2017 submits that the petitioner is running a tiffin shop in front of Mattuthavani Omni Bus Stand Madurai based on the licence granted by the 3rd respondent / the Divisional Engineer, Highways (Construction and Maintenance), Madurai on 21.10.2013. The petitioner is a street vendor. The petitioner is also paying yearly tax of Rs.300/- to the respondent Corporation. However without constituting the vending committee and without conducting any survey the 3rd respondent is taking steps to evict the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel prays for appropriate directions to the respondents.
4.The 2nd respondent/ the Commissioner of Corporation, Madurai has filed a counter affidavit in WP(MD)No.12276 of 2017 on 04.06.2018 stating that the petitioner has not obtained any no objection certificate from the Corporation and as per the resolution No.791 dated 12.11.2014 the Corporation has every power to evict the encroachers. Further the petitioner has to approach the street vendors committee for redressal of this grievance.
5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(MD)No.24098 of 2017 submits that petitioner is the President of Khaidae Millath Mattuthavani Bus Stand Street Vendors Welfare Association and there are 30 members in their association and they are running eateries out side the Mattuthavani Bus Stand during night hours from the year 1999. Out of 30 members, 12 members have been issued with temporary licence by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Anna Nagar by his proceedings dated 21.10.2013. He further submits that without forming town vending committee the respondent Corporation is trying to evict the petitioners. Therefore the learned Counsel prays for appropriate directions to the respondents.
6.Mattuthavani bus stand is the main central bus stand for Madurai corporation and it is the second biggest bus stand in Tamil Nadu. Several thousands of commuters are using this bus stand and several thousands a
The court established that street vendors must operate within designated vending zones as determined by the Town Vending Committee, and that licenses issued without proper authority are invalid. The ....
Only the designated Highway Authority has the jurisdiction to grant or cancel permissions for temporary stalls on highway margins, and such actions must comply with safety regulations and proper proc....
The court affirmed that street vendors do not have an unqualified right to occupy designated no-vending zones and that proper procedures for eviction as per the relevant statutes were followed.
The court emphasizes the necessity of forming a Street Vending Committee to issue licenses as per the Street Vendors Act, ensuring street vendors' rights and livelihoods.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
