JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —All these petitions are being disposed of vide common judgment. Facts and issues being similar and identical, we are dealing with the facts of CWP No.2352 of 2017, titled as Hari Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following common reliefs: "i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to the effect that the petitioner be immediately re-located as per the provision of Street Vendor (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2004. (ii) Further respondents are directed to pay damages to the Petitioner for the illegal demolition of reharis/kokhas without complying the provisions of street vendor act." 3. Petitioner alleges that despite holding licence for setting up Tehbazari Rehadi, issued by the Municipal Council, Parwanoo, he even as "street vendor", is being ejected, without following due process of law and all this despite the matter having been brought to the notice of the concerned Police Officers, vide representation dated 9.5.2017 (Annexure P-4) . 4. For the last about 26 years, Nagar Panchayat/ Municipal Council, Parwanoo, has been issuing licences for setting up Khokhas/Rehadis. 40 such Khokhas/ Rehadis were set up on the National Highway-22, near new HIMUDA Complex and Rehadi Market, Parwanoo. 5. On 9.5.2017, without any proper notice, HIMUDA demolished 32 Khokhas by using force and petitioners also apprehend similar action, for they cannot be removed, save and except, in accordance with the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . 6. Respondent No.3 (HIMUDA) has filed replyaffidavit, clearly stating that petitioners are encroachers over public land. Also, petitioners have no right or licence to set up Rehadis at the place(s) in question. Prior to the widening of the National Highway and construction of the Commercial Complex, 25 moving Rehadis, which were actually parked, were got removed. Also, general notice dated 2.2.2017 was issued to all the encroachers, asking them to vacate this portion of the encroached land. 7. From the record, in this regard, it is evident that even the Civil Court(s) have vacated interim orders passed in civil proceedings initiated by the encroachers. 8. It is in this backdrop, respondents No.1 & 2 adopt the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3. 9. 7. From the record, in this regard, it is evident that even the Civil Court(s) have vacated interim orders passed in civil proceedings initiated by the encroachers. 8. It is in this backdrop, respondents No.1 & 2 adopt the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3. 9. At the threshold, we may clarify that petitioners do not have any right to continue to occupy the place in question, i.e. property of HIMUDA/Municipal Council, Parwanoo, near Punjab National Bank, Sector-1, Parwanoo, and as such they must immediately vacate the same. 10. However, the issue, which arises for consideration, is as to where would they go. 11. We are informed that place for relocation of ''street vendors'', as defined under the provisions of the Act and identified by the Vending Committee, stands earmarked. It is in Sectors 1 and 2 of Parwanoo. The proposal for development of the same stands recommended to the State Government and money for executing the lease deed stands deposited with HIMUDA. 12. But, the issue is larger and requires deeper consideration. From the copy of licence placed on record, one notices that the petitioner(s) are not residents of the State and it is not that the Municipal Council, Parwanoo, had been issuing licence(s) in their favour, continuously over a period of more than 2-3 decades, as is so averred by them. In the case of one such writ petitioner, i.e. Hari Ram, we find the licence to have been issued only in the year 2014- 15, and the said writ petitioner hails from the State of Bihar. The situation with regard to the other petitioners is more or less similar. Thus, the question, which arises for consideration, is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the protection/benefits under the Act or not? 13. We now proceed to examine the rights of the petitioners. 14. As is evident from the Preamble, the Act was enacted to protect the rights of urban street vendors and to regulate street vending activities. 15. Chapter-Ii of the Act regulates vending on the streets. Sub-section (2) , Section 22 of Chapter-VII of the Act mandates constitution of ''Town Vending Committees'' in each local authority. Section 3 of Chapter-II makes it obligatory for the Town Vending Committees to conduct survey of the street vendors, within the area falling under its jurisdiction. 15. Chapter-Ii of the Act regulates vending on the streets. Sub-section (2) , Section 22 of Chapter-VII of the Act mandates constitution of ''Town Vending Committees'' in each local authority. Section 3 of Chapter-II makes it obligatory for the Town Vending Committees to conduct survey of the street vendors, within the area falling under its jurisdiction. Further, such committees are to ensure that all the existing street vendors, identified in the survey, are accommodated in the vending zones, subject to a norm conforming two and half per cent of the population of the ward or zone or town or city, as the case may be, in accordance with the plan for street vending and the holding capacity of the vending zones. 16. Noticeably, after the survey is conducted, the vending zones and scheme for street vendors are required to be prepared. 17. Who is a "street vendor", stands defined in clause (l) of sub-section (1) , Section 2 of Chapter-I of the Act, as under: "(l) "street vendor" means a person engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares, food items or merchandise of everyday use or offering services to the general public, in a street, lane, side walk, footpath, pavement, public park or any other public place or private area, from a temporary built up structure or by moving from place to place and includes hawker, peddler, squatter and all other synonymous terms which may be local or region specific; and the words "street vending" with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly." "Vending zone" stands defined under clause (n) of the said Section as under: "(n) "vending zone" means an area or a place or a location designated as such by the local authority, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, for the specific use by street vendors for street vending and includes footpath, side walk, pavement, embankment, portions of a street, waiting area for public or any such place considered suitable for vending activities and providing services to the general public." 18. The Act itself does not protect anyone and everyone, who is a rank encroacher and considers itself to be street vendor. In fact, Chapter-III prescribes the rights and obligations of such persons. The Act itself does not protect anyone and everyone, who is a rank encroacher and considers itself to be street vendor. In fact, Chapter-III prescribes the rights and obligations of such persons. No doubt, in terms of Section 12, every street vendor has a right to carry out the business of street vending activity, but then this has to be in terms of the terms and conditions mentioned in the certificate of vending. In fact, sub-section (2) of Section 12 prohibits any vendor to carry out any vending activity in a no vending zone. Section 14 mandates that the street vendor has to remove his goods and wares every day at the end of time-sharing period allowed to him. In terms of Section 15, vendor has to maintain cleanliness and public hygiene in the vending zone, so also not cause damage or destroy any public property. The vendor is under an obligation to pay, periodically, maintenance charges for civic amenities and the facilities provided in the vending zone. 19. Careful perusal of Chapter-II of the Act indicates that every street vendor identified under the survey is required to be issued a certificate of vending by the Town Vending Committee. This is subject to certain terms and conditions. Again, from sub-section (3) of Section 4, it is evident that not anyone and everyone has a right to vend at the place, time or manner in which he so chooses or desires. All this is regulated by the Town Vending Committee, as is further evident from Sections 5, 6 & 7 of the Act. The Town Vending Committee, on the basis of executive assessment and keeping in view the safeguards provided under Section 7, has to categorize the vendors, be it stationary, mobile or any other category and issue certificates for vending. Also, it is seen that the vendor is required to pay fee and the vending certificate does not confer any right of permanency, for it is to be renewed under Section 9 and can be cancelled/ suspended under Section 10 of the Act. 20. Thus, in our considered view, the vendor does not have an absolute right of vending his wares at the time, manner, mode and/or place which he so desires or chooses to do so. 21. Further, we notice that the Act itself provides mechanism for relocation and eviction of street vendors. 20. Thus, in our considered view, the vendor does not have an absolute right of vending his wares at the time, manner, mode and/or place which he so desires or chooses to do so. 21. Further, we notice that the Act itself provides mechanism for relocation and eviction of street vendors. This is in terms of Chapter-VI of the Act. 22. We may only observe that menace of street hawking/vending, on account of rapid urbanization, has acquired a different dimension. It has its advantages, benefits as also hazards. 23. When it comes to the State of Himachal Pradesh, which undisputedly is a tourist destination, one finds that there is multiple increase in the tourist population, which is neither stationary nor seasonal. Now, it is a permanent and regular feature, spread throughout the year, more so during the week ends. Also, there is overall growth of industry, be of whatever nature and scale. All this has resulted into influx of migrant labourers, seeking livelihood in every part of the State. Overnight, one finds, public places to be crowded with hawkers and vendors, be it on the National Highway or commercial establishments and this activity, though unorganized, is enormous. 24. One finds neither the hawkers nor the functionaries of the State actually understanding and implementing the import or the provisions of the Act. In our considered view, the authorities have totally misconstrued the provisions of the Act, for it is not that the hawkers are to be relocated with proper shops/ structures provided to them. The Act does not envisage a situation where a market is to be constructed for street vendors. It is in this backdrop, we reiterate that both HIMUDA and Municipal Council, Parwanoo, have misconstrued the intent, purpose and scope of the Act. 25. It is also not that every hawker has got a right of protection from ejectment/eviction, under the provisions of the Act. People indulging in the activity of hawking/ vending, but without complying with the provisions of the Act, cannot seek any protection in terms thereof, for vending is permissible only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In fact, it is regulated, considering various factors, including holding capacity of the vending zone. There is no automatic application of the Act qua every vendor, who under misconception chooses to sit on any place or time on a public property, vending anything and everything. In fact, it is regulated, considering various factors, including holding capacity of the vending zone. There is no automatic application of the Act qua every vendor, who under misconception chooses to sit on any place or time on a public property, vending anything and everything. Persons, who come to the State, seeking employment, only on weekends or during tourist season, when tourists throng the State in large number, have no right of protection under the Act. 26. We are informed that in Parwanoo more than 306 street vendors stand identified, but then the affidavit filed by the respondents herein, is conspicuously silent on this aspect. Names and number of the persons identified as street vendors, in terms of the Act, who have been vending in Parwanoo, a highly industrialized town, has not been placed before us. Are we to understand that only 306 vendors/hawkers are vending in Parwanoo or are there many more? Is it that no action has been taken against the remaining persons? Or is it that all other stand evicted? 27. Again, we reiterate and take judicial notice of the fact that on the National Highway, passing through Parwanoo Municipal Council, more so over the weekends hundreds of persons can be seen hawking their wares, be it eatables or any other item. 28. Though the scope of this petition is limited, with respect to Parwanoo, but then such scene is noticeable at all tourist spots and destinations of Himachal Pradesh. This, in a great measure, has resulted into law and order problem, apart from causing degradation of the environment, for one finds the entire roadside and countryside to be littered with items of non-biodegradable material. 29. It was only pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Gainda Ram& others versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & others , (2010) 10 SCC 715 , that the Act in question came to be enacted. 30. 29. It was only pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Gainda Ram& others versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & others , (2010) 10 SCC 715 , that the Act in question came to be enacted. 30. The Apex court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & another v. Municipal Corporation, Grater Mumbai & others , (2014) 1 SCC 490 , while highlighting the plight of the street vendors/hawkers and the raw treatment suffered by them at the hand of the administration, emphasized the need for constitution of Town Vending Committees, in view of the Act, which was a Bill at that point in time, emphasizing the need for registration of the hawkers/ vendors, entitling them to operate in the area, specified by such Committees. The restriction imposed upon the High Courts for entertaining the matters pertaining to hawkers, pursuant to the directions contained in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai , (2009) 17 SCC 151 , was also lifted. 31. Further, in Dharam Chand v. Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council and others , (2015) 10 SCC 612 , the Court emphasized that the Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Constitution of India, under Article 19(1) (g) is also subject to reasonable restrictions, and keeping in view the security and public order of the area. The Court was dealing with the case of removal of owner of kiosk, in close proximity to the Court premises. It is in this backdrop, the Court observed that wherever necessary, personal liberties of citizens may be curbed within reasonable limits, restricted in the interest of peace, security, law and order. In fact, the Court reiterated its earlier view that even though the hawkers have a right under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions, under Article 19(6) . It emphasized that hawking may not be permitted where, e.g. due to narrowness of road, free flow of traffic or movement of pedestrians is hindered or where for security reasons an area is required to be kept free, Hospitals, places of worship, etc. are also required to be kept free of hindrance. It clarified that there is no fundamental right under Article 21 to carry on any hawking business. Equally, there is no right to do hawking at any particular place. are also required to be kept free of hindrance. It clarified that there is no fundamental right under Article 21 to carry on any hawking business. Equally, there is no right to do hawking at any particular place. In fact, it emphasized the need for having regulated activity, for small traders, for it could suitably add to the convenience and comfort of the general public, by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. Now, all this has to be kept in mind by the authorities, while taking a decision. 32. In view of the same, we dispose of the present petitions with the following directions: (a) Municipal Council, Parwanoo/Town Vending Committee/HIMUDA shall re-examine and revisit the entire provisions of the Act andthen take appropriate decision/action for strict enforcement thereof. (b) The Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh; the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA; Chairman and Executive Officer of Municipal Council, Parwanoo; Sub Divisional Magistrate, Parwanoo, shall conduct a joint meeting and take appropriate action for proper and complete implementation of the provisions of the Act, including for (i) correctly identifying all street vendors, (ii) adhering to the vending zones, (iii) issuing vending licences, in terms of the Act, (iv) evict all persons who do not fall within the holding capacity/provisions of the Act, and (v) relocate such of those persons who stand identified as street vendors at such places, which stand identified, i.e. Sectors 1 & 2 or at another area. (c) We clarify that we have not adjudicated the status and rights of the writ petitioners, for we leave it open to be so considered and decided by the authorities concerned. It is for the authorities to decide the same and the writ petitioners to establish their rights and entitlements under the Act, which shall positively be done within a period of four weeks from today. (d) Municipal Council, Parwanoo; HIMUDA and the other functionaries, under the statute, shall ensure compliance of the provisions of the Act. They shall further ensure that no squatting zone is maintained and once the street vendors are settled, all other squatters are removed. It shall be ensured that the squatters are not allowed to return to the squatting zone. (e) In any event, all Khokhas/Rehadis, near Punjab National Bank, Sector-1, Parwanoo, shall be removed immediately. They shall further ensure that no squatting zone is maintained and once the street vendors are settled, all other squatters are removed. It shall be ensured that the squatters are not allowed to return to the squatting zone. (e) In any event, all Khokhas/Rehadis, near Punjab National Bank, Sector-1, Parwanoo, shall be removed immediately. (f) The Superintendent of Police, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, shall also render all necessary assistance for evicting the vendors and the squatters. (g) The Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Station House Officer, Parwanoo, shall be personally liable for ensuring compliance of the orders and any direction found to be flouted shall amount to misconduct, warranting disciplinary action. They shall maintain proper register of removal of all encroachers, so as to ensure that repeatedly such persons may not continue to violate the provisions of the Act. Necessary action, if so required, be also taken against them. Pending application(s) , if any, also stand disposed of.