The court emphasizes the necessity of forming a Street Vending Committee to issue licenses as per the Street Vendors Act, ensuring street vendors' rights and livelihoods.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 12/03/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI Kanjana ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai..

2. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai..

3. The Inspector of Police, C-1 Police Station, Vilakkuthoon, Madurai - 625 001.

4. Rajaram, S/o. Father Name Not Know to the Petitioner 3rd Street, Lake Area, Mattuthavani, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER :-

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 3rd respondent from in any manner interfering with the petitioner`s street vending business at North and East Chithirai Veethi junction nearby Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple Park, Madurai City and by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.02.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Murugapandi, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj - for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Mr.S.Vinayak for R2 Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the third respondent from in any manner interfering with the petitioner's street vending business at North and East Chithirai Veethi junction nearby Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple Park, Madurai City and by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.02.2026.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner is a woman of age 68 years, who is a senior citizen woman and conducting street vending business for the past more than 30 years near Meenakshi temple Park. However, due to the instigation of the fourth respondent, the third respondent police is hindering the petitioner's business, and hence the petitioner made a representation on 25.02.2026 in this regard. However, the third respondent police is continuing to trouble the petitioner, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate, submitted that the submission of the leanred counsel for the petitioner is not fully correct, and his claim that the petitioner is a street vendor for the past 30 years has to be proved by him. But the fact is that she do not possess any license for street vending.

4. However, it seems there is a business rivalry between the fourth respondent and the petitioner. Since the fourth respondent is a necessary party, notice should be issued to the fourth respondent.

5. Considering the plight of the petitioner, this Court finds it necessary that the second respondent should forthwith issue a street vending license to the petitioner to secure her livelihood. It is made clear that the third respondent police should not cause any trouble to the petitioner till then.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that so far as far as Madurai Corporation is concerned, Town Vending Committee is not formed and hence, unless the same is formed, the question of issuing license to the street vendor license to the petitioner will not arise.

7. It is a mandate of the The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, that Street Vending Committee, has to be formed in every corporation for the purpose of issuance of license to the street vendors. However, it is seen that the Madurai Corporation has not bothered to form any committee so far and had also acted lethargically in permitting the third respondent police to hinder the livelihood of the street vendor like the petitioner for the reason that they don't have a street vending license.

8. Post this case for compliance by the second respondent, on

23.03.2026. The second respondent is directed to comply and report before this Court as to the issuance of street vending license to the petitioner. 12.03.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Note : Issue order copy on 16.03.2026 pnn To