Administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily relocate a licensed vendor under the guise of public convenience without specific statutory authority or a correct interpretation of judicial orders, as such actions infringe upon the constitutionally protected right to livelihood.

ORDER (ORAL) :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2025 which is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs;

“(a) Issue an ad-interim injunction, suspending the operation and effect of the impugned orders dated May 14, 2025 and May 31, 2025, issued by the Respondents No.2 and 3 (Annexure P1 and P2).

(b) To allow the Petitioner to continue their business to usual location, duly consideration the provisions of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India until the final disposal of this Writ Petition;

(c) To pass such order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner while narrating the facts of the Petitioner‟s case has walked this Court specifically through the impugned Orders as well as the interim Order of the Learned Single Judge of this High Court dated 22-11-2021, in WP(C) No.39 of 2021, the Order dated 09-08-2023 and clarificatory Order dated 20-10-2023 in the same Writ Petition. It is submitted that, the interim order of this High Court recognises that, the livelihood of the Petitioner was at stake and therefore a temporary space was to be designated to the Petitioner to carry on his business of hawking goods. Pursuant thereto, on 15-04-2023, the licence of the Petitioner was renewed by the Gangtok Municipal Corporation (GMC, Respondent No.3). Following this development, the Petitioner intimated the Municipal Commissioner that his licence has been renewed and that he had occupied the same space as earlier, for hawking his goods. After the renewal of his licence, the private Respondents filed I.A. No.04 of 2023, in WP(C) No.39 of 2021, seeking a clarification of the interim order dated 09-08-2023. The clarification was given by the Learned Single Judge, on 20-10-2023. After such clarification, the private Respondents had apparently approached the Respondent No.3 (GMC) complaining against the occupation by the Petitioner. The Respondent No.3 (GMC), vide order dated 12-06-2024, informed the private Respondent No.5 (Kiran Devi) herein, that it had examined the matter in detail and the dispute being civil in nature, advised the Respondent No.5 (Kiran Devi), to approach the Civil Court. Aggrieved by this Order, the private Respondents No.4 and 5, i.e., Sharda Devi Agarwal and Kiran Devi, sent a communication to the Municipal Commissioner- cum-Chairperson, Town Vending Committee, on 30-11-2024. This communication was not responded to, instead the Petitioner was summoned by the Office of the District Magistrate (Respondent No.2) evidently based on the letter of the private Respondents (supra) to the Municipal Commissioner. It is submitted by Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, that, the Counsel appearing before the Respondent No.2 (District Magistrate) for the Petitioner, was informed verbally that, the Complaint being considered by the Respondent No.2 (District Magistrate), was one addressed to the Municipal Commissioner. After the parties were heard, the impugned Order (Annexure P1) was pronounced by Respondent No.2 (District Magistrate). It is submitted by Learned Senior Counsel, that, the Respondent No.2 (District Magistrate) exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing the impugned order, giving directions to the Respondent No.3 (GMC) regarding the removal of the Petitioner from his hawking space and relocating him. Upon the direction of the Respondent No.2 (District Magistrate), the Respondent No.3 (GMC), vide Notice dated 31-05-2025, directed the Petitioner to remove his hawking stall fr