Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Smt. Gaddam Rajamma & Others - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.23165 OF 2021
Decided On : 18-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 - Section 3 - Telangana Street Vending Scheme, 2016 - Telangana Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2020 - Street vendor - Direction to Respondent not to dispossess Petitioners from their business premises and conduct an enquiry by considering their representation - Petitioners signed lease agreements in year 1998 without knowing its contents - It was only in 2008 when lease deed expired that Petitioners came to know about contents of lease deed - Action of respondents in interfering and trying to dispossess Petitioners without considering representation is illegal and is contrary to Act, 2014, Rules 2020, and Apex Court judgments – Respondent contends petitioners do not fall within definition of ‘street vendor’ - Petitioners are only lessees and cannot claim protection under Act, 2014 - Whether petitioners fall within definition of ‘street vendors’ under Act, 2014, Telangana Street Vending Scheme, 2016 and Telangana Street Vendors Rules, 2020.
Finding of the Court:
Street vendor means a person engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares, food items or merchandise of everyday use or offering services to general public, in a street, lane, sidewalk, footpath, pavement, public park or any other public place or private area, from a temporary built up structure or by moving from place to place and includes hawker, peddler, squatter and all other synonymous terms which may be local or region specific; and words “street vending” with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly - Definition of ‘street vendors’ clearly mentions that they have to carry on business from a temporary built-up structure - In present case, Petitioners themselves have admitted to carryout business from permanent structure i.e., leased shops - Petitioners, who pay rent regularly and who have invested an amount Rs.38,000/- cannot suddenly claim to be street vendors - Petitioners were merely shopkeepers under lease agreement and not street vendors under Act, 2014. They cannot take shelter under provisions of Act.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard Mr. Venkat Raj Goud, learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4
2. The present writ petition is filed by the Petitioners to declare the action of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in trying to dispossess the Petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure laid down under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, G.O. Ms. No.11 (MA & UD) dated 05.01.2016 of Telangana Street Vending Scheme, 2016 and G.O. Ms. No. 89 (MA & UD)dated 10.06.2020 of Telangana Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2020, and for a consequential direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to dispossess the Petitioners from their business premises and conduct an enquiry by considering their representation dated 08.09.2021.
3. Facts of the Case:
(ii) The business premises of the Petitioners were burnt in the year 1990, due to a short circuit. Thereafter, in furtherance of a Government plan, the Petitioners were asked to deposit Rs.38000/- for construction of permanent shops. After the construction, vide Proc. No. B1/3736/93/pts dated 25.06.1998, the said shops were allotted on lease to the Petitioners for a period of 10 years i.e., up to 31.03.2008
(iii) In the year 2008, the lease period expired, but based on requests from the lessees a resolution was passed by Gram Panchayath, Nakrekal on 30.06.2008 extending the lease for 10 years with an enhancement of 30% in the rent. However, eviction order was issued on 23.01.2010 to the people including some of the Petitioners herein for non-payment of rent. Subsequently, a public auction notice was also published on 08.02.2010.
(iv) The said eviction order and auction notice were challenged before this court in W.P. No. 3086 of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2017 directing the authorities to permit the continuation of lessees who have paid the rent till 31.12.2017. Auction of lease hold was allowed and the Petitioners therein were allowed to participate in the auction, provided they complied with all the conditions. It is relevant to note that some of the Petitioners in the present case were also the Petitioners in W.P. No. 3086 of 2010.
(v) Therefore, as the second lease period expired on 31.03.2018, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4were trying to dispossess the Petitioners. In this regard, a representation dated 08.09.2021 was submitted to Respondent No. 3 to conduct an enquiry and allot the shops to the Petitioners.
(vi) The Petitioners claiming right over the shops have been vacated from their respective shops by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 09.09.2021. A resolution was passed on 18.09.2021 by Nakrekal Municipal Council to auction 38 shops.
(vii) Hence, the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition claiming protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter ‘the Act, 2014’).
4. Contentions of the Petitioners
(ii) Several representations were made to the authorities to allot the shops on permanent basis to the Petitioners at a normal cost.
(iii) The Petitioners are street vendors. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal
Definition of ‘street vendors’ clearly mentions that they have to carry on business from a temporary built-up structure.
Street vendors cannot be evicted without adherence to statutory provisions, including the completion of surveys and designation of vending zones as mandated by the Street Vendors Act.
Compliance with statutory notice requirements and proper issuance of street vending certificates were upheld, confirming lawful methodological procedures for vendor relocations under the Street Vendi....
The designation of specific areas as 'No Vending Zones' under the Street Vendors Act and the authority of the respondents to issue challans against unauthorized vendors.
The absence of necessary certifications precludes legal protection under the Street Vendors Act.
The court reinforces the necessity to follow due process before evicting street vendors while balancing their livelihood rights against those of business owners.
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
