JUDGMENT :

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the Street Vendor who is engaged in selling of Fast Food near footpath in front of Kiran Cinema (Near Krishna Namkeen Bhandar), Sector 22, Chandigarh. In a survey conducted by the authorities in the year 2016, the petitioner was found to be working as such. He was also registered as such.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he is being forcefully relocated from his existing vending site at Ward No.3, Sector 22, Chandigarh to Sector 23 at Site No.22. It is submitted that this action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed to set aside the draw of lots conducted on 10.01.2025, wherein the petitioner has been allotted site No.22 in Sector 23, Chandigarh. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus allowing him to work at his existing place in Sector 22, Chandigarh. Prayer has also been made to restrain the respondents from forcefully shifting the petitioner.

3. The respondents, on acceptance of notice have entered appearance and filed a detailed reply. Apart from other facts, it is asserted in paragraph 29 that Sector 22 has been surveyed and in the plan drawn by the respondents, 107 vending sites were approved by the competent authority. The registered vendors of Sector 22 were subjected to draw of lots in which the petitioner was not successful.

4. It is also the case of the respondents that as per the lay out plan of the vending zone of Sector 22, the exact site near footpath in front of Kiran Cinema (Near Krishna Namkeen Bhandar), Sector 22, Chandigarh where the petitioner claims to be working, is not an approved vending site. The respondents therefore have conducted draw of lots and allotted a site to petitioner in Sector 23, which is adjoining to Sector 22, Chandigarh. The petitioner however has not opted to shift there.

5. Though the reply has been served upon the counsel for the petitioner in October, 2025 but no replication has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner orally submits that the authorities have wrongly refused to recognize the petitioner’s existing site as an approved vending site and that in the event petitioner was to be shifted, an appropriate opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner which is denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that under instructions of the Central Government, the existing street vendors cannot be uprooted and shifted in the manner as is being done in the facts of the present case. Reliance has placed upon Annexure P-9 which is issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (UPA Division) dated 18.07.2018. This circular contains revised operational guidelines for support to Urban Street Vendors under the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NULM), which is reproduced as under:-

“4.7 The ULB should make every effort to minimize disruption to existing markets while developing the city street vending plan. Accordingly, the plan may be developed in such a manner that no relocation or eviction of street vendors take place. Re- location of street vendors if required, must be based on consultation with the affected vendors.”

It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is otherwise protected under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.

7. At the outset, we may record the statement of counsel for the respondent that in the month of July and August 2016 survey was conducted by the authorities of Chandigarh Administration in furtherance of and in compliance of the provisions of the Act, 2014. The respondents have stated in Para 13 that during the survey conducted in the city of Chandigarh, 21,622 street vendors were surveyed but the number of actual sites available on ground were only 5460. Th