The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Street Vendors Act, 2014 provides protection to street vendors, the court emphasized the need to address encroachments and chaos caused by vendors, and directed the authorities to take necessary actions to comply with the Act.

M. Jeyapaul, J.

All these writ petitions, namely, CWP No. 12542 of 2015, CWP No. 12543 of 2015, CWP No. 12544 of 2015, CWP No. 12545 of 2015 and CWP No. 12546 of 2015 are taken up as a bunch for disposal as the contentions raised and the prayers sought for therein are found to be one and the same.

2. These writ petitions have been filed praying for quashing office order dated 24.4.2015 passed by 2nd respondent-Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Executive Officer to remove the encroachments in Shastri Market, Sector 22, Chandigarh and the adjoining area thereof and the office order dated 11.6.2015 passed by 3rd respondent-Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner rejecting the representation made by street vendors in compliance with the order passed on 3.6.2015 by this Court in CWP No. 10774 of 2015. They have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to immediately constitute 'Town Vending Committee' as defined in The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

3. It is contended by the petitioners in the above writ petitions that they are doing street vending business in the area of Sector 22, Chandigarh for the last more than 15 years and are earning livelihood for their families. Some of the petitioners have inherited the said business from their parents and joined the said business later in time. Some of the petitioners were shifted to several places and were also allotted licence by the competent Authorities. Permits/coupons to conduct business of stationary vending were also issued to the petitioners as well as the other vendors operating in various parts of Chandigarh city. Challans also were issued to some of the petitioners by the competent Authority for doing the street vending business on the pavements or on the land of the Municipal Corporation, U.T. Administration. The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 came into force on 5.3.2014. The petitioners are the street vendors as per the definition in Section 2(1) of the Act. As per Section 22 of the Act, it was mandatory for the appropriate Government to constitute a 'Town Vending Committee' in each local Authority. There shall be representation for the street vendors in the said Committee. As per Section 36 of the Act, the appropriate Government is bound to frame Rules within one year from the date of commencement of the Act. No Rules have been framed by the respondents in Chandigarh. The Town Vending Committee shall conduct a survey of all existing street vendors within the area under its jurisdiction in order to identify the street vendors for accommodating them in the vending zones. The Town Vending Committee has not been constituted so far by the appropriate Government. 2nd respondent has issued an office order dated 24.4.2015 directing the Enforcement Wing of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh to remove the encroachments in Shastri Market, Sector 22, Chandigarh and adjoining area thereof. Respondents No. 5 & 6 are not allowing the petitioners to run their street vending business on the pavements and other area surrounding Sector 22, Chandigarh in spite of an embargo found under Section 3(3) of the Act that no street vendor shall be evicted or relocated till the survey is completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors. Some of the street vendors filed CWP No. 10774 of 2015 before this Court praying for quashing the above official order dated 24.4.2015. The said writ petition was disposed of on 1.6.2015 giving an opportunity to the petitioners to approach the Municipal Corporation with a representation. Until the disposal of the representation, eviction of the petitioners was stayed. A representation was submitted to the 3rd respondent who rejected the same. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs by the petitioners.

4. In the written stateme