IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI DATE: 20.01.2026 Between :

Telangana Street Vendors and Hawkers Union (Regd. No.

H-42), Represented by its President S.Venkat Mohan.

… Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and ten others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in not considering the representation dated 07-08-2019 seeking implementation of provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and consequently direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to implement the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and further direct the Respondents No. 8 to 11 not to harass the street vendors by imposing Fine, eviction, confiscation of goods etc., in violation of Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and pass such other order or orders…”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 7 to 11, and Mr. G. Madhu Sudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submits that the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, are being duly implemented in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not brought on record any specific instance of violation or non-compliance. Hence, in view of the statutory framework being implemented, the grievance raised in the present writ petition does not survive for consideration.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, supporting the above submission, contends that the respondents-Police have neither interfered with nor created any impediment in the implementation of the provisions of the 2014 Act. It is emphasized that the role of the Police, if at all required, is confined to extending assistance for enforcement strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law and in furtherance of the objectives of the said Act.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. Having regard to the prayer made and the submissions advanced by the respondents, and in view of the fact that the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 are being implemented, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the present writ petition is rendered unnecessary.

8. However, it is made clear that the right of the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings or to avail any other remedies available to him under law is expressly reserved. Subject to this liberty, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 20.01.2026 svl