SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 33314

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
S.Ravinder – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 38715/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.38715 of 2025

DATE : 16.12.2025

Between:

S. Ravinder and 2 others.

…Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana,

Represented by its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Adminsitration Urban Development Department,

B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat,

Hyderabad and 4 others.

…Respondents

ORDER: (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“…to declare the action of the respondents in demolishing

the existing vegetable market and forcibly evicting/relocating the petitioner and about 100 similarly placed stationary street vendors from the municipal site in Manthani town, without following the procedure prescribed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the Telangana State Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2020 and the Telangana State Street Vending Scheme, 2016, and without providing proper rehabilitation and basic amenities

while proceeding with construction of a Modern Veg & Non- Veg Market under TUFIDC Assistance, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess or relocate the petitioner and other vendors from the existing market site except in strict compliance with the aforesaid Act, Rules and Scheme and after providing after proper rehabilitation sheds and facilities, and to constitute/activate the Town Vending Committee for Manthani Municipality…”

2. Heard Ms.Shakeera Begum, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5- Municipality.

3. It is stated that the petitioners are stationary street vendors carrying on petty business for the last fifteen (15) years in the old Manthani market, situated in an extent of Acs.2-00 guntas of municipal land, where about 100 street vendors are doing business by selling vegetables/household needs etc. The said market is a natural, traditional and public market catering to the daily needs of the residents of Manthani town and surrounding villages. Earlier, the said market was within the limits of the Manthani Gram Panchayat, which was subsequently upgraded as Manthani Muncipality.

The petitioners and other vendors have been doing their business peacefully for past more than three (3) decades by paying necessary charges/fees to the concerned authorities. Hence, the petitioners and other vendors squarely fall within the definition of “street vendors” and “stationary vendors” under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. It is further stated that the respondent authorities have obtained administrative and technical sanctions for construction of a “Modern Veg and Non-veg Market” in Manthani Municipality under the Telangana Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (TUFIDC) Assistance Package-X for an estimated cost of about Rs.814 Lakhs, vide proceedings dated 08.08.2024 issued by respondent No.4-the District Collector, Peddapalli and Memo No.920/T1/Manthani dated 28.09.2025 issued by respondent No.3-the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department (PHMED).

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities have abruptly commenced demolition of the old market structures in the first week of December, 2025 and threatened the petitioners and other vendors with forcible eviction from their shops in the market. The petitioners were neither given prior notice nor an opportunity of hearing. As of now, forty (40) vendors have been forcibly shifted to the so-called temporary relocated market, which is far away from the original market and commercially unviable, thus, the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5-Municipality produced wr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top