Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 924 (AP)

Keerti Rajesham v. State of Telangana

2015-12-10

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2015
ORDER : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. Both these writ petitions are filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 2-Municipality in seeking to dispossess the petitioners by demolishing the shops/temporary structures raised by them in Survey No. 87 PP situated near water tank, Mancherial, Adilabad District, without following the due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. From the pleadings of both the parties, it is evident that the petitioners have occupied a road margin in the aforesaid survey number, raised structures thereon and have been carrying on their respective businesses. There is, however, a dispute as to the nature of these structures. While it is the case of the petitioners that these are temporary structures, respondent No. 2 has pleaded that they are permanent structures. 2. Be that as it may, in the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2, it is stated that 698 street vendors were identified and given Identity Cards by the Town Vending Committee (for short 'the Committee'). However, having admitted in Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioners have been using the road portion in Survey No. 87 PP for carrying on their respective vending businesses, no reasons have been given as to why the Committee has not identified the petitioners as street vendors. 3. Under Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act'), the Town Vending Committee is under obligation to conduct a survey of all the existing street vendors, within the area under its jurisdiction, and shall ensure that the existing street vendors, identified in the survey, are accommodated in the vending zones subject to the norm of limiting the number of street vendors to two and half per cent of the population of the ward or zone or town or the city, as the case may be, in accordance with the plan for street vending and the holding capacity of the vending zones. Under sub-section (3) thereof, no street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under sub-section (1) has been completed and the Certificate of Vending is issued to all the street vendors. 4. Under sub-section (3) thereof, no street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under sub-section (1) has been completed and the Certificate of Vending is issued to all the street vendors. 4. Under Section 18 of the Act, the local authority may, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, declare a zone or a part of it as no vending zone for any purpose and relocate the street vendors vending in that area, in such manner as may be specified in the Scheme. 5. Under Section 13 of the Act, every street vendor, who possesses a Certificate of Vending, shall, in case of his relocation under Section 18 of the Act, be entitled for new site or area, as the case may be, for carrying out his vending activities as may be determined by the local authority in consultation with the Town Vending Committee. 6. In the instant case, respondent No. 2 has alleged that the petitioners are doing businesses at non-vending zone and that they are not street vendors. While the counter-affidavit is silent as to whether vending zones are identified, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2-Municipality has candidly admitted that, so far, no such zones have been identified. If that be so, the plea of respondent No. 2 in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners are doing businesses at non-vending zone is without any basis, for, unless the vending zones are identified, no person can be accused of doing business in non-vending zone. As respondent No. 2 has, admittedly, not identified the vending zones, as required under the provisions of the Act, it has no right to evict any of the street vendors till the vending zones as well as the street vendors are identified. As the petitioners have, admittedly, occupied the road margin and been carrying on their respective vending businesses, I do not find any reason, whatsoever, for the Committee to not recognize them as street vendors. In the face of the admission made by respondent No. 2 in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners are carrying on vending businesses albeit in the purported non-vending zones, respondent No. 2 is directed to issue Identity Cards to them as street vendors within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In the face of the admission made by respondent No. 2 in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners are carrying on vending businesses albeit in the purported non-vending zones, respondent No. 2 is directed to issue Identity Cards to them as street vendors within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent No. 2 is also directed to identify the vending zones as per the provisions of the Act and relocate all the street vendors including the petitioners in those vending zones subject to the limit prescribed under Section 3 of the Act before evicting them from their respective places of businesses within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.