Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Manik Debnath & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 321 of 2015
Decided On : 13.08.2015
Street Vendors - Challenge to Eviction - Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 - Section 2(1), Section 3(3), Section 3(1), Section 3(2), Section 4 - The court discussed the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, emphasizing the protection of livelihood and regulation of street vending. The court highlighted the necessity of a structured legislation and the importance of conducting surveys and issuing certificates of vending to street vendors. The court prohibited eviction without observing the provisions of the Act and the rules to be framed thereunder.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be street vendors under the Street Vendors Act, challenged the eviction actions of the respondent, Agartala Municipal Corporation, alleging violation of the Act's provisions. The court addressed the preliminary objection of maintainability and the nature of the cause for filing the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition without deciding on the merit, as the respondent stated that no eviction actions had been taken and necessary rules were yet to be framed. The court prohibited eviction without observing the Act's provisions and the rules to be framed thereunder.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition and the nature of the cause for filing the petition, specifically regarding the threatened eviction of street vendors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of a structured legislation for the protection of livelihood and regulation of street vending. It highlighted the importance of conducting surveys and issuing certificates of vending to street vendors. The court prohibited eviction without observing the provisions of the Street Vendors Act and the rules to be framed thereunder.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition without deciding on the merit, prohibiting eviction actions without observing the provisions of the Street Vendors Act and the rules to be framed thereunder.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners who have claimed to be the street vendors within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the street vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 have challenged the purported action of the respondent namely Agartala Municipal Corporation in violation of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the said Act whereby it has been provided that no street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under Section 3(1) of the said Act is carried out for the purpose as laid down. Section 3(1) of the said Act provides that the Town Vending Committee shall, within such period and in such manner as may be specified in the scheme, conduct a survey of all existing street vendors, within the area under its jurisdiction, and subsequent survey shall be carried out at least once in every five years. Section 3(2) of the said Act has obligated the Town Vending Committee, as defined under Section 2(m) of the said Act, to ensure that all existing street vendors, identified in the survey, are accommodated in the vending zones subject to a norm, conforming to two and half per cent of the population of the ward or zone or town or city, as the case may be and in accordance with the plan for street vending and the holding capacity of the vending zones. Section 3(3) of the said Act provides further that “No street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under subsection (1) has been completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors.” The certificate of vending would be issued in terms of Section 4 of the said Act by the Town Vending Committee subject to such terms and conditions and within the period specified in the scheme including the restrictions specified in the plan for street vending. The certificate of vending shall carry the conditions and before issuance of such certificate every street vendor shall furnish an undertaking to the Town Vending Committee to the effect that the business would be exclusively carried on by him or his family members and also to the effect that he has no other means of livelihood and he shall not transfer in any manner whatsoever, including rent, the certificate of vending or the place specified therein to any other person. The certificate of vending would be valid for certain period and if the street vendors dies or suffers from any permanent disability or is ill, one of his family members in following order would be given the certificate of vending for the remaining period.
(a) spouse of the street vendor;
(b) dependent child of the street vendor.
2. The petitioners have made allegations by means of this writ petition that without any survey, Agartala Municipal Corporation “……………… are evicting and threatening to evict the Petitioner in blatant disregard and disobedience of the Act, 2014 and Rules framed thereunder.” No further details regarding the alleged action are available in the entire writ petition.
3. A preliminary objection was raised by the Registrar, Vigilance by his order dated 30.07.2015 in view of the order No.80 dated 03.07.2015 and the matter has been placed before this Court for passing appropriate order. On the request of Mr. K. K. Pal, learned counsel for Agartala Municipal Corporation made on 05.08.2015, this writ petition has been taken for hearing on the question of maintainability.
4. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Order No.80 cannot impede the petitioners from filing a joint petition as Rule 1 of Chapter VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules which has been adopted by the High Court of Tripura has been interpreted by the Gauhati High Court in Nishitendu Dhar vs. State of Assam and another (Judgment and order dated 01.12.1995). For the purpose of reference the provisions of Rule 1 of Chapter VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules is extracted hereunder:
“An application
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
