Street vendors cannot be evicted from their place of business without following the due process mandated by the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, provided they do not erect permanent structures or block pedestrian footpaths.

ORDER:

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notices bearing No.123-T, dated 27-3-2015 to the writ petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from our shops situated on the bank of Rivas canal, Lenin Center, NTS No.1015 of Vijayawada City,….”

2. The petitioners herein are vendors of fancy and readymade cloths who erected their shops on the embankment of Rivas Canal, NTS No.1015, belonging to the Irrigation Department, by obtaining electricity connections from the concerned department, and they are also paying taxes to the Municipal Corporation.

3. While things stood thus, the 5^th respondent herein issued a notice dated 27.03.2015 bearing Notice No.123-T to the petitioners directing them to vacate the premises occupied by them, failing which action would be taken against them. Challenging the notice dated 27.03.2015, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the said notice was issued by the 5^th respondent without taking into consideration the statutory provisions governing the subject, viz., the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 7 of 2014, dated 04.03.2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that as per Section 2(1) of the said Act, which defines “street vendor,” Section 2(k) defines “stationary vendor,” and Section 2(n) of the Act defines “vending zone.” The petitioners are entitled to the benefits under the Act and further submitted that, instead of considering the petitioners’ possession over the subject land, the 5 th respondent, without having any jurisdiction, issued the impugned notice.

5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 24.12.2015, this Court passed the following interim order:

“Status-Quo existing as on today shall be maintained.”

6. The respondent Nos.2 and 5 filed a detailed counter. The relevant paragraphs of the counter filed by the respondent No.5 are extracted herein as under:

“In reply to Para No.4 of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the contention of the petitioner's said notice directing us to vacate the premises is being challenged in the writ petition as the same is without jurisdiction and without any authority of law is absolutely false and denied. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner's have no right to continue in the subject property as the same belongs to Irrigation Department. The Department has the right to take back the land in the best interest of public by following due process of law.

Further, it is submitted that the statutory provisions stipulated in The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, 7 of 2014, dt.4-3-2014 is not applicable to the subject property (i.e. N.T.S.No. 1015 Ryves Canal bund) as it is a water body and encroachments on water body are clearly objectionable. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that Hon'ble AP Lokayukta, Hyderabad has passed orders on 29-11-2011 in Complaint No.531/2008 & 851/2010/B1 directing the District Collector, Krishna to see that "all canal bunds encroachments are evicted except the case which are covered by the Hon'ble High Court orders. Even with the reference to the orders obtained from the Hon'ble High Court, the Dist. Collector, Krishna is also directed to instruct the concerned officer to file necessary papers before the Hon'ble High Court and get the interim orders vacated since encroachments on canal bunds are clearly objectionable and cannot be allowed to be continued. The Dist. Collector is also directed to issue necessary orders for rehabilitat