213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision:08.01.2026 SADLU PARSAD ....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present: Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate with Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent(s)-M.C., Chandigarh.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging communication dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P-8). This communication refers to allotment of site as per ‘draw of lots’ in favour of the petitioner on 10.01.2025.

2. The petitioner has been allotted Site No. 32 in Sector-9, Chandigarh. The allotment of the site is assailed on the ground that the petitioner has been running a tea stall (phri) at an open place in the same sector, i.e., Sector-9, Chandigarh, and that he ought to be permitted to continue doing so in view of the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

3. The claim of the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner is running his tea stall adjoining the footpath.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submits that the place where the petitioner is running his tea stall is not a part of the footpath but is, in fact, an open area.

5. In order to identify the place where the petitioner is running his tea stall, the petitioner has annexed two photographs at pages 36 and 37 of the writ petition. These photographs make it abundantly clear that the place where the petitioner is running his tea stall is adjoining the main road and is, in fact, part of the footpath.

6. We have already rejected a similar claim of the petitioner vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in CWP-36838-2025 titled Hari Ram vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others. The order dated

10.12.2025 is reproduced as under:

“1. Petitioner is a street vendor. He has approached this Court challenging the draw of lots dated 10.01.2025, whereby he has been allotted a site in Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. It is submitted that from the last fifteen years, the petitioner has been carrying his vending activities at a particular site i.e. in Sector 32-B, Chandigarh and, therefore, he could not have been shifted to a different location.

2. The petition is strongly opposed by Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, appearing for Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, who argues that the allotment to the petitioner is in the same sector, but at a different location within the approved vending zone. Attention of this Court has also been invited to page No.15, which shows that a structure was erected by the petitioner on the footpath, where he was working as a street vendor. Footpaths are meant for the free movement of public and, while protecting the rights of street vendors in accordance with the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the dominant public interest of free movement of pedestrians on the footpaths cannot be jeopardized. We otherwise find that the Municipal Corporation, has already allotted a site at a different location in the same sector to the petitioner. In such circumstances, we do not find any occasion to interfere in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

3. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not shift within three days from today to the location which has been allotted to him, it shall be open for the authorities of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law.”

7. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been allotted a site in the same sector, there is absolutely no reason to allow the petitioner to continue at the place where he was unauthorizedly carrying on his activity.

8. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any,