Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J., VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.
Vijay Pal Singh and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No.685 of 2022 With WRIT PETITION (M/S) No.801 of 2022 With WRIT PETITION (M/S) No.803 of 2022 With WRIT PETITION (M/S) No.806 of 2022 With WRIT PETITION (M/S) No.846 of 2022 With WRIT PETITION (M/S) No.850 of 2022 With WRIT PETITION (M/S) No.1004 of 2022
Decided On : 05-11-2024
(A) Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 - Sections 2(l), 3(3), and 18(3) - Writ petitions challenging eviction notices issued by Municipal Corporation - Petitioners claimed rights as street vendors but constructed permanent structures - Court directed Municipal Corporation to examine claims for rehabilitation as per law. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 16)
(B) Eviction - Legal framework - Petitioners argued eviction violated statutory protections for street vendors - Court found petitioners did not qualify as street vendors due to permanent structures and lack of registration. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners operated meat shops and other businesses in Haldwani, facing eviction due to alleged violations of municipal regulations. They claimed rights under the Street Vendors Act, asserting high-handedness by authorities. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the removal of petitioners' structures and directed the Municipal Corporation to consider rehabilitation claims. (Paras 14, 16)
Issues: The main issues included the definition of street vendors and the legality of the eviction notice. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners did not meet the definition of street vendors due to the nature of their structures and lack of registration, thus not entitled to protections under the Act. (Paras 10, 12)
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for rehabilitation consideration.
JUDGMENT :
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
Since common question of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, these petitions are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No.685 of 2022 are being considered and discussed.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-
I. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to evict the petitioners from their respective shops situated near Ghasmandi, behind Police Outpost, Mangal Parao, Haldwani, till the respondents construct a meat market for carrying on the business of selling the mutton and chicken in retail.
II. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the accommodation for the purpose of meat market for carrying on the business of selling the mutton of Jhatka/Halali Category as well as for the purpose of selling the Chicken.
III. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 31-03-2022, issued by Nagar Nigam, Haldwani, which has been affixed on the shop of the petitioners on 01-04-2022 (contained as Annexure no. 1 to this petition)
"III-A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioners on the same place where the shops of the petitioners were in existence till 04-04- 2022 at Near Ghasmandi Behind Mangal Parao Police Outpost, Haldwani District Nainital.
III-B. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the possession of the petitioners at the spot where the shops of the petitioners were in existence till 04-04-2022, on the same terms and conditions on which the possession of other persons whose shops are adjacent to the shops of the petitioners, has been regularized.
IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
V. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
3. Petitioners were running meat shops in Ghasmandi, near Fish Market at Haldwani, District Nainital, after obtaining licence from Nagar Palika and other concerned authorities. According to them, they had constructed kiosks over the foot path near Junior High School, known as Balvidya Niketan. In WPMS No.1004 of 2022, petitioner no.1 is running a restaurant and petitioner nos.2 to 4 were running tyre repairing shops at Tikonia Road, at Haldwani, District Nainital.
4. Petitioners are aggrieved by the eviction notice issued to them by Municipal Commissioner, Haldwani on 31.03.2022. In the said notice, it was alleged that petitioners have constructed kiosks in violation of provisions contained in the Uttarakhand Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, and due to the constructions so raised by them, movement of traffic is obstructed and filth is also strewn all around the place and petitioners were asked to remove their structures before 04.04.2022, failing which, the same was to be removed at the cost and expense of the petitioners.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that writ petitions were mentioned and filed before this Court on 04.04.2022, and the matter was heard on the same day after lunch, however, before the matter could be heard, municipal authorities demolished the construction raised by the petitioners. Thus, he submits that it was an act of high-handedness on the part of the authorities.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/Municipal Corporation Mr. Ashish Joshi, has drawn our attention to the contents of notice dated 31.03.2022. A perusal thereof indicates that petitioners were asked to remove their constructions before 0
The court determined that petitioners, having constructed permanent structures, do not qualify as street vendors under the Street Vendors Act, thus lacking statutory protections against eviction.
Eviction of street vendors without statutory thirty days’ notice under the 2014 Act is illegal and violates the right to livelihood.
The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014 and related regulations.
Definition of ‘street vendors’ clearly mentions that they have to carry on business from a temporary built-up structure.
A municipality must take action against unauthorized street vendors obstructing access to private property.
No right to specific vending site in non-vending zone; committee has discretion to relocate vendors.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue a writ of mandamus and the application of the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regu....
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
