No right to specific vending site in non-vending zone; committee has discretion to relocate vendors.

For Appellants : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For R – 1 : Mr.R.Baskaran Additional Advocate General for M/s.R.B.Law Associates For R – 2 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader J U D G M E N T [Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J]

Challenging the order of the writ court dated 29.01.2026 passed in W.P(MD)No.1044 of 2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

2.The Writ Petition was originally filed seeking a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from, in any manner, dispossessing or evicting the writ petitioners from their present place of street vending at N.S.B. Road, Trichy, till the completion of the survey as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2014”).

3.The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that a resolution had been passed by the Street Vending Committee declaring the area as a non-vending zone and that the writ petitioners had been put on notice of such resolution, dismissed the Writ Petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that no procedure, as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act, 2014, had been followed and no survey had been conducted by the Committee. However, the writ petitioners were dispossessed from the place. Hence, there is a clear violation by the authorities and their possession ought to be restored.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the area had already been declared as a non-vending zone by a resolution passed by the Committee, of which the writ petitioners were also aware. It is further submitted that all vendors have been relocated to alternative places, and the appellants/writ petitioners have also been identified as street vendors and accommodated in nearby locations. Therefore, as a matter of right, the appellants/writ petitioners cannot seek restoration of possession in the same place which has already been declared as a non-vending zone.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7.The very prayer in the Writ Petition is in the nature of an injunction restraining the authorities from evicting the petitioners; however, eviction has already been carried out. It is not in dispute that the appellants/writ petitioners have been recognised as street vendors. It also appears that alternative places have been allotted to them. The grievance of the appellants appears to be with regard to the inconvenience caused in the newly allotted places.

8.We are of the view that such inconvenience faced by the street vendors cannot be a ground to direct restoration to the original place. The Committee has been vested with the discretion to regulate and allot vending places. As a matter of right, no individual can insist on being permitted to vend at a particular place. While allotting places to street vendors, various factors have to be considered, including access, public convenience, and the rights of others. Therefore, it is for the Committee to decide the places where such licences are to be granted.

9.We do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. However, it is brought to our notice that the representations of the appellants/writ petitioners are pending before the Committee. The appellants/writ petitioners are also permitted to submit fresh representations, if any, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representations, the Committee shall consider and pass appropriate orders on m