ORDER By means of this writ petition, the petitioners who have claimed to be the street vendors within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the street vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 have challenged the purported action of the respondent namely Agartala Municipal Corporation in violation of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the said Act whereby it has been provided that no street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under Section 3(1) of the said Act is carried out for the purpose as laid down. Section 3(1) of the said Act provides that the Town Vending Committee shall, within such period and in such manner as may be specified in the scheme, conduct a survey of all existing street vendors, within the area under its jurisdiction, and subsequent survey shall be carried out at least once in every five years. Section 3(2) of the said Act has obligated the Town Vending Committee, as defined under Section 2(m) of the said Act, to ensure that all existing street vendors, identified in the survey, are accommodated in the vending zones subject to a norm, conforming to two and half per cent of the population of the ward or zone or town or city, as the case may be and in accordance with the plan for street vending and the holding capacity of the vending zones. Section 3(3) of the said Act provides further that “No street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under subsection (1) has been completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors.” The certificate of vending would be issued in terms of Section 4 of the said Act by the Town Vending Committee subject to such terms and conditions and within the period specified in the scheme including the restrictions specified in the plan for street vending. The certificate of vending shall carry the conditions and before issuance of such certificate every street vendor shall furnish an undertaking to the Town Vending Committee to the effect that the business would be exclusively carried on by him or his family members and also to the effect that he has no other means of livelihood and he shall not transfer in any manner whatsoever, including rent, the certificate of vending or the place specified therein to any other person. The certificate of vending would be valid for certain period and if the street vendors dies or suffers from any permanent disability or is ill, one of his family members in following order would be given the certificate of vending for the remaining period. (a) spouse of the street vendor; (b) dependent child of the street vendor. 2. The petitioners have made allegations by means of this writ petition that without any survey, Agartala Municipal Corporation “……………… are evicting and threatening to evict the Petitioner in blatant disregard and disobedience of the Act, 2014 and Rules framed thereunder.” No further details regarding the alleged action are available in the entire writ petition. 3. A preliminary objection was raised by the Registrar, Vigilance by his order dated 30.07.2015 in view of the order No.80 dated 03.07.2015 and the matter has been placed before this Court for passing appropriate order. On the request of Mr. K. K. Pal, learned counsel for Agartala Municipal Corporation made on 05.08.2015, this writ petition has been taken for hearing on the question of maintainability. 4. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Order No.80 cannot impede the petitioners from filing a joint petition as Rule 1 of Chapter VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules which has been adopted by the High Court of Tripura has been interpreted by the Gauhati High Court in Nishitendu Dhar vs. State of Assam and another (Judgment and order dated 01.12.1995). For the purpose of reference the provisions of Rule 1 of Chapter VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules is extracted hereunder: “An application for a direction or order or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, other than writ of habeas corpus, shall be drawn up in the form contained in the schedule to this Chapter and shall be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied upon. Separate applications should be filed for each individual where interests are not identical even if there is one common order covering several cases and the facts of each case should be separately supported by affidavit.” It is to be further noted that by way of amendment carried out by the Notification dated 19.08.1992, the following proviso has been inserted after the second paragraph in Rule 1 of Chapter V/A quoted above. “Provided that more than one such individual can jointly file a single writ petition on each of them paying court fee payable on such application.” 5. When, that proviso was challenged in Nishitendu Dhar vs. State of Assam and another, the Gauhati High Court while refusing to strike down the said amendment has held that the amendment cannot be interpreted to mean as the general rule that in every case when a single writ petition is filed by several individuals, court fees will have to be paid by each of them separately on the writ application. It has been further held that since the second paragraph does not provide for separate application where interests are identical the impugned proviso cannot enlarge the scope of the second paragraph of the said rule to imply that a single petition cannot be filed by several individuals whose interests were identical. It has been held further that “In our opinion the impugned proviso only provides an exception from the general rule stated in the second paragraph of Rule 1 of Chapter V/A of the Rules and that separate applications to be filed where interest are not identical and the exception is that a single application may also be filed by several individuals where the interests are not identical provided the separate court fee is paid for each such individual in the single application. But in such a case where several individuals identical case where a single application is sought interest by paying individual the High Court can consistent with the principles of CPC always exist in filing the writ petition by each such individual where it deems fit.” 6. Thus, the said interpretation did not leave any space for ambiguity. It is only in those cases where the interests of individual joining in the same writ petition are not identical and where the principles of Order 1, Rule 1 of CPC are not applicable the separate application has to be filed. Thus, the said interpretation did not leave any space for ambiguity. It is only in those cases where the interests of individual joining in the same writ petition are not identical and where the principles of Order 1, Rule 1 of CPC are not applicable the separate application has to be filed. After such reading down, the said proviso has been saved by the Gauhati High Court. 7. The question of maintainability that has been raised by the Registry is that whether the writ petition in hand has been filed in violation of Order No.80 on the premises that each writ petitioner might have separate cause of action and as such according to Order No.80 the writ petitioners ought to have filed separate petitions. 8. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the interests of the writ petitioners are identical, Order 80 may not have any relevance in the present writ petition. Notwithstanding that even in Nishitendu Dhar vs. State of Assam and another, the Gauhati High Court did not shut the door finally. Hence, the option remains with the hawkers whether they would file the separate writ petition or not. According to him, there is no apparent conflict between the said judgment and the Order No.80. To determine the question of maintainability, it is essential to ascertain the nature of the cause or in other words, what the cause is for which the writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. According to the petitioners the cause is their threatened eviction in violation of Section 3(3) and Section 12 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. In Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and another vs. Municipal Corporation, greater Mumbai and others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 490 , the apex court followed the principles laid down in Gainda Ram and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 715 where the apex court has framed elaborate guidelines how to protect the livelihood and regulate the street vending. The said decision in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and another vs. Municipal Corporation, greater Mumbai and others is based on the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2009. The said decision in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and another vs. Municipal Corporation, greater Mumbai and others is based on the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2009. It is needless to say that in Gainda Ram and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, the apex court has emphasized the necessity of a structured legislation in view of the provisions of the bill. This decision of the apex court was the beacon light in protection of the livelihood of the street vendors and regulation of the street vending. But with the passage of time, the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 has been enacted under the aegis of Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty alleviation w.e.f. 01.05.2014. In this writ petition there is no description of the cause for filing the writ petition by the writ petitioners even though in the para 4 of the said writ petition it has been admitted that the individual petitioners are carrying on their vending on different places within the Agartala Municipal Corporation and few of them have their trade license issued by the Agartala Municipal Corporation. Except the sweeping general statements that Agartala Municipal Corporation is evicting the petitioners or they are apprehensive of eviction, no details are available to ascertain the cause of filing the writ petition by the individual petitioners. However, it has been stated in the writ petition that all the hawkers and street vendors have common, same and identical interest in the writ petition. That statement is not enough to ascertain the nature of cause to examine the similarity of interest or cause. 9. Mr. B. C. Das, learned Advocate General has appeared for the respondent No.1, the State of Tripura and has categorically made a statement that the Agartala Municipal Corporation has not taken any drive or initiative to evict any street vendors from any zone. The writ petitioners do not have any cause and the writ petition has been structured on imaginary grounds. According to learned Advocate General, the Government of Tripura has by notification under No.F.16(35)UDD/DUD/2014/302229 dated 25.06.2015 constituted a committee for framing appropriate rules under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and necessary rules under the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. According to learned Advocate General, the Government of Tripura has by notification under No.F.16(35)UDD/DUD/2014/302229 dated 25.06.2015 constituted a committee for framing appropriate rules under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and necessary rules under the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. Learned Advocate General has further apprised this Court that no action against any street vendor would be taken unless the necessary rules are framed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. He has further assured this Court that for taking any action to evict any unauthorized person required survey would be carried out through the Town Vending Committee which would be constituted by virtue of the contemplated rules and all necessary steps would be taken in accordance with the rules. The apprehension of the writ petitioners are without any foundation and for this the writ petition is entirely for publicity interest. 10. In view of the said statement made by the learned Advocate General in the court, this writ petition is disposed of without deciding the same on merit. 11. The respondents are prohibited to evict any street vendor without observing the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the rules as contemplated to be made thereunder. Till the rules, as may be framed under the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 no action shall be taken against any street vendor without the survey as required. Any observation made in this order shall not come in the way of implementing the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. Before parting with the records, this Court is constrained to observe that the way the vokalatnama (the deed of power) has been filed along with this writ petition is not acceptable in law. In Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 75 the apex court has observed as under: “21. We may at this juncture digress and express our concern in regard to the manner in which defective Vakalatnamas are routinely filed in courts. Vakalatnama, a species of Power of Attorney, is an important document, which enables and authorizes the pleader appearing for a litigant to do several acts as an Agent, which are binding on the litigant who is the principal. Vakalatnama, a species of Power of Attorney, is an important document, which enables and authorizes the pleader appearing for a litigant to do several acts as an Agent, which are binding on the litigant who is the principal. It is a document which creates the special relationship between the lawyer and the client. It regulates and governs the extent of delegation of authority to the pleader and the terms and conditions governing such delegation. It should, therefore, be properly filled/attested/accepted with care and caution. Obtaining the signature of the litigant on blank Vakalatnamas and filling them subsequently should be avoided. We may take judicial notice of the following defects routinely found in Vakalatnamas filed in courts : (a) Failure to mention the name/s of the person/s executing the Vakalatnama, and leaving the relevant column blank; (b) Failure to disclose the name, designation or authority of the person executing the Vakalatnama on behalf of the grantor (where the Vakalatnama is signed on behalf of a company, society or body) by either affixing a seal or by mentioning the name and designation below the signature of the executant (and failure to annex a copy of such authority with the Vakalatnama). (c) Failure on the part of the pleader in whose favour the Vakalatnama is executed, to sign it in token of its acceptance. (d) Failure to identify the person executing the Vakalatnama or failure to certify that the pleader has satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama. (e) Failure to mention the address of the pleader for purpose of service (in particular in cases of outstation counsel). (f) Where the Vakalatnama is executed by someone for self and on behalf of someone else, failure to mention the fact that it is being so executed. For example, when a father and the minor children are parties, invariably there is a single signature of the father alone in the Vakalatnama without any endorsement/statement that the signature is for 'self and as guardian of his minor children'. Similarly, where a firm and its partner, or a company and its Director, or a Trust and its trustee, or an organisation and its office bearer, execute a Vakalatnama, invariably there will be only one signature without even an endorsement that the signature is both in his/her personal capacity and as the person authorized to sign on behalf of the corporate body/firm/ society/organisation. (g) Where the Vakalatnama is executed by a power of attorney holder of a party, failure to disclose that it is being executed by an Attorney holder and failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney; (h) Where several persons sign a single vakalatnama, failure to affix the signatures seriatim, without mentioning their serial numbers or names in brackets. (Many a time it is not possible to know who have signed the Vakalatnama where the signatures are illegible scrawls); (i) Pleaders engaged by a client, in turn, executing vakalatnamas in favour of other pleaders for appearing in the same matter or for tiling an appeal or revision. (It is not uncommon in some areas for mofussil lawyers to obtain signature of a litigant on a vakalatnama and come to the seat of the High Court, and engage a pleader for appearance in a higher court and execute a Vakalatnama in favour of such pleader). We have referred to the above routine detects, as Registries/ Offices do not verify the Vakalatnamas with the care and caution they deserve. Such failure many a time leads to avoidable complications at later stages, as in the present case. The need to issue appropriate instructions to the Registries/Offices to properly check and verify the Vakalatnamas filed requires emphasis. Be that as it may.” 12. In this case a vakalatnama has been filed purportedly by the petitioners in favour of Sri Purushuttam Roy Barman, Advocate, Sri Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Sri Kausik Nath, Advocate and Sri Prodyut Maishan, Advocate. The petitioners namely Manik Debnath, Nanda Gopal Saha, Sujit Deb, Ranjan Roy, Ratan Banik, Asit Paul, Suman Das, Anup Kumar Roy, Babul Debnath and Sujan Das signed on the printed deed of power bearing the Bar Association’s encryption No.HBA 2525 and all those advocates have put their signatures in acceptance but in the said form only the description of Manik Debnath, Nanda Gopal Saha, Ranjan Roy, Ratan Banik are available. The signatures of the other petitioners appear on the blank sheets and without any reference to the printed form, the pages No.58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 of the writ petition. How those are part of the deed of power (Vakalatnama)? Those are blanks sheets whereon the signatures of the petitioners are available and nothing more. Not even the signatures of the advocates are there. How those are part of the deed of power (Vakalatnama)? Those are blanks sheets whereon the signatures of the petitioners are available and nothing more. Not even the signatures of the advocates are there. This Court is really taken aback how such vakalatnama has been accepted by the Registry. Those blank papers cannot be treated either as a part of vakalatnama nor can those be related to the vakalatnama for their very nature. The Registry in future shall exercise due care and caution while accepting the vakalatnama in view of the law as enunciated by the apex court in Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr. With these observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.