ORDER : 1. The petitioner prayed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the second respondent's proceeding in Na.Ka.No.8899/2015/Pa6, dated 08.11.2017 and further to direct the fourth respondent to collect the rent from the petitioner's Association members. 2. The petitioner's Association, who are road side vendors and members of Sunset Bazaar Vyabarigal Nala Sangam, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent, dated 08.11.2017, wherein, the second respondent has directed the petitioner's Association to remove the encroached shops functioning without any permission. The petitioner's Association further claims that the Association consists of 27 members and they are doing business as roadside vendors in the seashore road as early as from the year 1980 onwards with the permission of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent seems to have issued receipts for the amounts collected from the Association members and they are doing business in the recognized place for vending. The petitioner further claims that initially, the fourth respondent had fixed the rent as Rs.50/- per day in the normal or off-season days, but in the season time, the fourth respondent used to collect three months rent ie., Rs.15,000/- separately from each members of the petitioner's Association. The members were further permitted to occupy the space for display of the selling products and they are not in default of payment for the past 40 years. However, during the year 2015, the fourth respondent had demanded higher rent for the place occupied by the members of the petitioner's Association, against which the petitioner's Association has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6776 of 2015 seeking the relief not to evict or shift the members of the petitioner's Association. In the said writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim injunction in favour of the petitioner's Association. However, since the fourth respondent disobeyed the order passed by this Court, a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.172 of 2015 was filed and thereafter, the fourth respondent obeyed the injunction order passed by this Court. 3. Under these circumstances, the fourth respondent had called for a tender with the other street vendors by way of excluding the petitioner's Association members and further allotted the space for street vending. In the meanwhile, W.P.No.6776 of 2015 was filed and this Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner's Association. 3. Under these circumstances, the fourth respondent had called for a tender with the other street vendors by way of excluding the petitioner's Association members and further allotted the space for street vending. In the meanwhile, W.P.No.6776 of 2015 was filed and this Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner's Association. However, the second respondent, without conducting any enquiry, proceeded to pass an order, dated 08.11.2017, by simply rejecting the petitioner's plea and the fourth respondent is now forcing the petitioner's Association members to evict them from the place of business, which they are doing for the past so many years. Challenging the said order passed by the second respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. Mr.R.Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of the fourth respondent is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Apart from that, the members of the petitioner's Association is protected under Street Vendors Act, 2014, wherein the respondents have failed to adhere to the procedures contemplated under the Act, which is a benevolent Act enacted for the benefits of the street vendors. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to Chapter II of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, in which, Section 3(3) states that “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 street vendors”. The learned counsel also pleaded that no forcible eviction can be done and dispossess the petitioner's Association members based on the impugned order, dated 08.11.2017, which has sought to be quashed by this Court. 6. To contradict the argument putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner's Association, Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/Town Panchayat has filed a detailed counter along with vacate stay petition. 7. 6. To contradict the argument putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner's Association, Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/Town Panchayat has filed a detailed counter along with vacate stay petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the petitioner's Association has not obtained any certificate of vending or licence or permission from the competent authority and therefore, the provisions of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, will not be applicable to the members of the petitioner's Association and they are liable to be evicted, since they are unauthorised occupants. Apart from that, the learned counsel further contended that during the prime season of business, especially during Sabarimala season ie., from November to January, identity cards would be provided to the street vendors with specific conditions. However certain street vendors of the petitioner's Association are continuously running their shops on the foot path of the beach road by running stationary and other shops, breaching the conditions stipulated by the respondents, which causes much hardship and disturbance to the tourist as well as to the general public, who are hardly able to use the foot path. Inspite of repeated caution given the respondent/authorities as well as various steps taken by them to remove the unauthorised shops, the shop-keepers are running their shops by floating the order of the administration and not vacating the same. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the petition filed by Sunset Bazaar Vyabarigal Nala Sangam has to be dismissed, vacating the order of status quo already granted by this Court. 8. This Court, on 20.11.2017, while hearing the petitioner's submission during the admission stage, had granted an order of status quo. No doubt, the petitioner's Association are street vendors. All the persons in our society cannot purchase everything from the super markets when shops were scantly available and the street vendors are the only source of place for purchasing the materials by the general public for their household needs. As such, due to the advancement of super markets, where the supermarkets have brought the concept of selling of everything under one roof, the day-to-day life of the street vendors are becoming challenge everyday. 9. As such, due to the advancement of super markets, where the supermarkets have brought the concept of selling of everything under one roof, the day-to-day life of the street vendors are becoming challenge everyday. 9. Apart from the road widening process and due to the increase in the motor vehicles have also brought congestion on the road in addition to the encroachment made by the street vendors. Merely stating that the street vendors are causing heavy disturbance to the tourists/pilgrims and general public, the authorities cannot wash away their hands, thereby absolving their responsibilities towards the street vendors. The authorities should not try to evict the street vendors rather than they should regulate the street vendors and their action should only be in a protective manner to the street vendors and not in a aggressive manner to remove them. At the same time, the street vendors also have some limits and they should also know their limits and boundaries to vend their articles to eke out their livelihood. At no point of time, the street vendors is permitted to cause disturbance to the traffic as well as the tourists/pilgrims in any manner by unauthorisedly putting up stalls on the busy tourist places. 10. As far as the petitioner's Association is concerned, their grievance were not considered when they made representation not to relocate or shift or evict them from the places where they locate, this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation on merits and in accordance with law. However, the second respondent by impugned order dated 08.11.2017, while considering the representation, dated 06.11.2017, had stated that the members of the petitioner's Association has encroached upon the Southern side of the coastal road of the pavement and the petitioner's Association had encroached upon the pavement and had constructed temporary shops which had spoiled the beautiful scenery of Kanyakumari beach and on several occasions, the existence of the temporary shops constructed by the petitioner's Association have caused severe traffic disturbances and by invoking Sections 180, 180(a), 182(1) and 183(4) of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, permission to the Association cannot be granted. There is no doubt that the impugned order has to be sustained for the reason that encroachments are made on foot path, which is especially constructed for the tourist persons to enjoy the sunrise and sunset and the same cannot be obstructed by the petitioner's Association by putting up the temporary stalls which block the view of the beautiful beach in Kanyakumari District has necessarily to be removed. 11. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that while this Court looking into the aspect of maintaining the beauty of the tourist place, this Court had to look into the plight of the street vendors and their life also to be taken into consideration. Even though this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, but this Court is of the view that the fourth respondent should be directed to allot alternative suitable place for the petitioner's Association to eke out their day-to-day life. 12. Accordingly, the members of the petitioner's Association shall submit individual representation to the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, who in turn shall consider the said representations of providing alternative vending site to the members of the petitioner's Association. Such process of fixing the alternative site for the road vendors shall be done within a period of four weeks thereafter. After allotting the said alternative site, the members of the petitioner's Association should remove their shops within two weeks from the date of sanctioning of alternative site, failing which, the fourth respondent is directed to remove the shops situated at Southern side of the coastal road near sunset point which is in occupation by the members of the petitioner's Association on the expiry of the day fixed for vacating the shops. 13. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.