The right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be infringed by withholding the means of livelihood. The Court emphasized that the Petitioners cannot trample on the fundamental rights of the Private Respondents by seeking absurd prayers.

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioners, crying foul, are before this Court exhorting that the Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 ought not to be allotted stalls in the ground floor of the “Non-Veg.” building for the purpose of selling Fish, dressed Chicken and Mutton as it would sound the death knell for similar business being run by the Petitioners on the first floor. It is reasoned that the ground floor being easily accessible to customers would deter them from taking the walk up to the first floor when similar goods are available at a convenient location at the same price. It is also the averment of the Petitioners that the stalls now allotted to the said Respondents had infact been earmarked for construction of toilets for use of the vendors, workers and the customers of the said building but has instead been allotted to the Respondents without adherence of the tender process and turning a blind eye to the hygiene conditions in the building.

2. The facts leading to the instant Petition are summarised here-in-below. The Petitioners are local vendors in the business of selling dressed Chicken, Mutton and Fish from their stalls in the first floor of a building known as the “Non-Veg.” building at “Khanchanjunga Shopping Complex” since the year 2006. It is asserted that they have been in the business since the last 60 years viz.; when the Old Lal Market, Gangtok, was functioning from tin-sheds. Subsequently the Khanchanjunga Shopping Complex was constructed with structures known as the “Veg.” and “Non-Veg.” buildings. Twenty-seven stalls each in the ground and first floor of the “Non-Veg.” building are allotted for the business of selling meat, inasmuch as live and dressed Chicken, Mutton and Fish are sold on the first floor, known as the “Fish Market”, while Beef, Buffen and Pork are sold on the ground floor. The business is the means of livelihood of the Petitioners with which they provide for their families. That one hundred and eighty people including the stall owners work in the said stalls sans provision for toilets since the year 2006, resulting in unhygienic conditions including foul smell emanating in the vicinity of the complex consequent to the outside area being utilised by people to ease themselves. Vacant space available on the ground floor adjacent to the staircase leading to the shops of the Petitioners was utilised temporarily by them for disposing garbage. The Petitioners had requested for construction of toilets in the said vacant space towards which a sum of Rs.7,32,600/- (Rupees seven lakhs, thirty two thousand and six hundred) only, was approved by Respondent No.1 but construction was not initiated despite assurances by the said Respondent. In April 2016, the much awaited construction commenced and the Petitioners were informed that this would be utilised as toilets while a portion thereof would be utilised for garbage disposal. Upon completion in January 2017, the stalls were instead allotted to the Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 for running meat shops by arbitrary selection, bypassing the tender or selection process.

3. In the said circumstances, the prayers enumerated in the Petition are as follows;

“(i) A Rule upon the respondent nos.1 and 2 and each of them to show-cause as to why orders/agreements/allotment of shops in favour of respondent nos.3 to 5 and trade licence of such shops in their respective names be not cancelled and upon hearing the parties to make the Rule absolute;

(ii) A writ or order or direction or declaration that the space on the ground floor adjacent to staircase leading to first floor which place was used by the petitioners for dumping garbage shall not be allotted to the respondent nos.3 to 5 or to any other persons to use it as shops. In the event allotment has already been made to respondent nos. 3 to 5 then all such allotments including agreements if any be cancelled;

(iii) A writ or order or direction or declaration against the respondent nos.1 and 2 that the newly constructed con