The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for street vendors to operate within specified vending zones, hold valid licenses, and comply with the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

Vivek Rusia, J.

Petitioners have filed the present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation challenging the action of the Municipal Corporation, Indore by which hawkers/vendors has been removed from the Government land/road and seized their goods. Petitioners have alleged that hawkers/vendors to meet their daily needs are running their business activities in various places of Indore city since last number of years by way of stalls, Thela, Gumti etc. In the month of July, 2015 the Indore Municipal Corporation started drive for seizing the hawker stalls and removing them permanently. It is further submitted that their rights are protected under section 18(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act of 2014') under which no street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority from the place specified in the certificate of vending unless he has been given 30 days notice for the same in such a manner as may be specified under the Scheme. By the act of the respondents about thousand stalls (Telas) has been completely seized and 700-800 were partly damaged. It is alleged that when the petitioners approached the respondents for return of their seized material illegally taken and when they could not fulfil their illegal demand by the petitioners, they could not get their articles back, hence the present petition has been filed before this Court seeking the relief in the nature that respondents be directed not to remove and dispose of or shift their place of business and further command them to provide alternate place and compensate them for their losses. They have also prayed the relief by way of command to the respondents/authorities to implement the Act of 2014. In support of the petition petitioners have filed various photographs, paper news and the representations and the affidavits of hawkers.

2. After notice respondents filed return and submitted that petitioners have misinterpreted the provisions of the Act of 2014 as the intention of the legislature was not to allow the street vendors to block the roads, footpaths, pavements and invite traffic jam, accidents and public inconvenience. As per the Act of 2014 the city can be divided into two zones viz., (i) vending zone and (ii) no-vending zone and the same have been defined in the Act also. Under section 12(2) of the Act of 2014 the street vendors are allowed to carry out their business only in vending zone. There are holding capacity of the vendors in a vending zone which is to be decided by the local authority and the vendors are defined in the Act viz., mobile vendors, stationary vendors and street vendors. Under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Path Par Vikray Karne Valo Ki Jivika Ka Sanrakshan Aur Vikray Ka Viniyaman Adhiniya, 2011 (for short 'the Act of 2011') and the Act of 2014 a survey was conducted to identify and declare vending zones in the city and the Town Vending Committee has passed a resolution declaring various areas of the city as (i) Green Zone (means free vending zone (ii) Yellow Zone (means restricted vending zone) (iii) Red Zone (means no vending zone) and (iv) Mobile Zone (where moving hawkers can carry out vending activities).

3. It is submitted by Shri M. Munshi, counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation that under the statute both the Central as well as State street vendors are allowed to carry out their vending activities in the area specified by the local authority. The Municipal Corporation, Indore has specified the area in four zones in which the vendors can carry out their business but under the garb of their business they cannot be permitted to block the roads/pathways and create traffic jams in the city due to which general public would suffer. He has further submitted that the Municipal Corporation has already returned the seized material to their owners after due verification in most of the cases. The balance materials are available i