IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA WP No. 32 of 2026 and WMP No. 24 of 2026 R.Nagaraj S/o. Ramalingam Running Mobile Petty shop Near Ashargana Bus Stop, GST Road Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Chief Executive Officer St. Thomas Mount, Cantonment Board, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

2. The Divisional Engineer (C & M)

Tamil Nadu Highway Department Anna Salai, Saidapet Chennai - 600 015.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2nd Respondent from interfering with the running of the petitioner’s petty shop near Ashargana Bus Stop GST Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016, wherein selling Tea, Coffee, Snacks, and prepared food items therein, till the 1^st respondent decides the issue of granting permission on the petitioners representation dated 06.11.2025 and pass order For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondent(s): Ms.A. Rexy Josephine Mary for Mr.C.Mohan of M/s.King & Partridge for R1

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus to the second respondent forbearing them from interfering with the running of the petitioner's petty shop in the subject property, till his representation dated 06.11.2025 was considered by the first respondent.

2. The petitioner's case is that he is running a petty shop near Ashargana Bus Stop, GST Road, Alandur, Chennai since 2008, selling tea, coffee, snacks etc., According to the petitioner, his petty shop is located beyond the platform of the road side margin and is no way causing disturbance to the general public and free flow of traffic. The petitioner would submit that the first respondent is the authority to conduct enumeration process of street vendors, so as to enable the second respondent to grant license / permission to run the vending shops, and the second respondent is the authority granting license / permission based on the enumeration process. The first respondent had conducted the enumeration process in May, 2025 and the petitioner's shop was identified during the enumeration process.

3. The petitioner would further submit that during November 2025, the existing bus shelter was demolished and accordingly the 2^nd respondent had instructed the petitioner to shift his shop to a nearby place. The petitioner had complied with the instructions of the 2^nd respondent and shifted his shop to a nearby vacant place on 05.11.2025. The petitioner had communicated the same to the first respondent on 06.11.2025 with a copy marked to the second respondent. In the said communication, the petitioner had requested the officials to grant licence for running his shop.

4. On 08.12.2025, the officials of the second respondent visited the shop of the petitioner and threatened that he should vacate the place within one week, failing which, the shop would be removed forcibly. The petitioner would contend that despite his explanation that he was identified in the enumeration process of the first respondent and was going to receive his licence shortly, the second respondent had turned a deaf ear to his request. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to forbear the respondents from interfering with the petty shop run by him, till a decision is taken by the first respondent with regard to grant of licence.

5. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary for Mr.C.Mohan of M/s.King & Partridge for the first respondent and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.

6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court the letter dated 21.11.2025 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner, clearly states that the implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, is expected to be completed by end of January 2026, and therefor