ORDER : 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- “(A) Your lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate write by way of quashing and set aside the notice dated 26.03.2021 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority not to demolish/ remove/ evict/ relocate the cabins of the petitioner and allow to carry the business at the same place till the survey specified in section 3 of the street vendor at has been completed And certificate of the vending is issue to the petitioner in the interest of Justice. (B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition to stay the further operation of the notice dated 26/3/2021 pass by the response number 3 Mamlatdar Halol and further be pleased to allow petitioner to carry their business on the same place till the Exercise specified in Section 3 of the Street Vender Act, 2014 in the interest of justice. (C) pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition Your Lordship may be pleased to grant status quo in respect of business and land in question. (D) Your Lordship may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as may be just and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things. (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to restore the original position of the cabins in question and petitioners may be permitted to allow to run the business unless the procedure is completed specified under Section 3 of the Street Vender Act, 2014 in the interest of justice. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:- 2.1. The petitioners are occupying the land in question for running their small business like, to sell prasad, lemonade etc. on survey no.1/1/A paiki 1 which belongs to Champaner Gram Panchayat. It is contended that on 27.03.2015, notice under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code came to be served to them and hearing was fixed on 15.04.2015. That they have filed their reply thereof. But, nothing has happened at that relevant point of time. 2.2. It is contended that once again on 21.01.2021, notice under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code came to be served upon them and hearing was fixed on 25.01.2021 at about 15.00 hours. That they have filed their reply thereof. But, nothing has happened at that relevant point of time. 2.2. It is contended that once again on 21.01.2021, notice under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code came to be served upon them and hearing was fixed on 25.01.2021 at about 15.00 hours. It is contended that the same was replied by the petitioners contending that they are in continuous possession of the land in question and running their small business thereon since last more than 20 years and are paying due tax to the concerned authorities. 2.3. It is contended that though the petitioners have filed the reply as aforesaid, on 20.03.2021, without considering the reply of the petitioners the respondent authority has passed the order to remove the alleged unauthorized construction holding that the land in question was used for commercial purpose and it was directed to the Talati Cum-Mantri, Champaner Gram Panchayat to start the proceedings for taking penalty. It is also contended that again on 26.03.2021, notice under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code came to be served to the petitioners and they were directed to vacate the unauthorized possession of the land in question on or before 29.03.2021. 2.4. According to the petitioner, the notice/ action of the respondent authority is violative for Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India as well as against the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “Street Vendors Act”) and against the order of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4156-4157 of 2002. 2.5. It is contended that the petitioners are in occupation of the land in question since last 20 years and they are paying tax to the panchayat and have also obtained electricity facility and therefore their occupation cannot be termed as illegal one. 2.6. Initially the prayer was limited for restraining the respondents from demolishing or evicting the petitioners from the land in question till the survey specified under Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act is completed. 2.6. Initially the prayer was limited for restraining the respondents from demolishing or evicting the petitioners from the land in question till the survey specified under Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act is completed. However, during the pendency of the petition as the constructions came to be removed by the authorities, the petitioners have prayed for mandatory order for restoration of original position of the cabins in question and for permission to run the business until the procedure is completed as specified under Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act. 3. Affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, at page no.92, wherein, it is contended that present petition is not maintainable as out of four petitioners, shops of petitioner nos.2 and 3 have already been removed on 30.03.2021; whereas, shops of petitioner nos.1 and 4 were removed on 31.03.2021 along with other persons and the authorities have taken the possession of the subject land on 31.03.2021 in accordance with law and in presence of panchas. 3.1. It is also contended that the petitioner no.1 has already availed the alternative remedy by filing Civil Suit No.21 to 24 of 2021 before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Halol challenging the notice dated 21.01.2021, issued under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the Trial Court is seized with the matter. It is also contended that admittedly the petitioners are encroachers on the Government waste land of survey no.1/1/A paiki 1 moje Champaner, Taluka Halol. It is contended that there are total 546 persons having their shops on the subject land and as many persons have encroached upon the Government land, notice under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code were issued on 27.03.2015 in case no.71/15 to all the encroachers including the petitioners. It is contended that reply were filed by the petitioners; however, thereafter the proceedings remained pending at the relevant point of time. 3.2. It is also contended that there are daily hundreds of visitors visiting ancient temple at Pavagadh. That the entry point and staircase, leading to the temple is assessed as exit and entry routes to the temple. It is contended that reply were filed by the petitioners; however, thereafter the proceedings remained pending at the relevant point of time. 3.2. It is also contended that there are daily hundreds of visitors visiting ancient temple at Pavagadh. That the entry point and staircase, leading to the temple is assessed as exit and entry routes to the temple. It is contended that the encroachment by the petitioners and other persons is 18x30 square feets in vicinity to entry way of the temple, thereby blocking the entry/ exit routes and hence it is imperative for the authorities to clear the land for safety of public at large and to keep clear the escape route in case of any unforeseen circumstances. It is contended that pursuant to that fact, fresh notice was issued under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code on 21.01.2021 in the pending proceedings. 3.3. It is also contended that the matter was kept for hearing on various dates and after the reply of the petitioners ultimately, order under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was passed on 20.03.2021 and 72 hours time was granted to the petitioners for removal of encroachment. It is contended that the order dated 20.03.2021 is not subject matter of the present petition. It is contended that even after passing of the order dated 20.03.2021, as the petitioners have not removed the encroachment, the impugned notice dated 26.03.2021 was issued. It is also contended that the petitioners have relied upon electricity bills, tax bills, however such receipts does not confirm any right or title towards the land to them. It is also contended that the panchayat is also not made party to the present petition to rebut the said contention of the petitioner. 3.4. It is also contended that the reliance placed on the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, more particularly Section 3(3) is misconceived, and it is contended that the said section can only apply where the survey of street vendor is initiated under Section 3(1). It is contended that since no survey of street vendors is pending as on date, the petitioners cannot get any protection under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act. It is contended that since no survey of street vendors is pending as on date, the petitioners cannot get any protection under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act. It is also contended that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case reported in (2018) 3 SCC 390, the encroacher cannot avail relief and therefore the petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Deepak Sanchela for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr.Meet Thakkar for the state at length. None has appeared for respondent no.5. Perused the material placed on record. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Deepak Sanchela for the petitioners has vehemently reiterated the contentions made in the memo of the petition and has submitted that without following the provisions of Section 3 contained in the Street Vendors Act, the authority has no power to remove the petitioners from the place in question. He has submitted that therefore the action of removal of the cabins after filing the petition is an action of the authority without any force of law and therefore the mandatory relief be granted in favour of the petitioners. Mr.Sanchela has also submitted that there are receipts of payment to the concerned Panchayat by the petitioners for the occupation of the land in question and photographs also suggest that there are other constructions made by other persons on the land. He has also submitted that the other persons are permitted to occupy the land in question; whereas the present petitioners are discriminated. He has also submitted that even as per the decision of the Supreme Court, in para 16 of the order filed with the petition, the Apex Court has issued various directions which have not been followed by the Competent Authority. He has submitted that when the authority has not initiated any action under the Street Vendors Act, the authority ought not to have removed the alleged encroachment of the petitioners over the land in question. He has prayed to allow the petition in toto and to pass mandatory order in favour of the petitioners. 6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Meet Thakkar has referred to the contention raised in the affidavit in reply and has stated that earlier also notices were issued by the authority to the petitioners. He has also submitted that the land in question is a Government waste land and action was taken under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Meet Thakkar has referred to the contention raised in the affidavit in reply and has stated that earlier also notices were issued by the authority to the petitioners. He has also submitted that the land in question is a Government waste land and action was taken under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. He has submitted that earlier, for the same purpose, a suit was filed by the petitioner, of course, which was withdrawn. He has submitted that the provisions of the Street Vendors Act would not be applicable to the petitioner as the land in question is not a street land, but, is a Government waste land. He has also submitted that the possession has already been taken over by the competent authority which is reflected from the rojkam at page no. 98. He has also submitted that the original order dated 20.03.2021 has not been challenged by the petitioner and therefore the subsequent notice for vacating the land only cannot be challenged. He has submitted that in absence of the challenge to the original order of 20.03.2021, the petition itself is not maintainable. He has submitted that when the cabins of the petitioners have already been removed and the possession of the land is with the Government and the petitioners being encroachers over the Government land, no relief whatsoever be granted in favour of the petitioners. He has prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr.Sanchela has submitted that as per the Supreme Court’s directions and the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, the authority has to make necessary survey of the street vendors and to provide appropriate place for livelihood of the vendors. He has submitted that necessary directions be issued to the authority to follow the provisions of the Street Vendors Act. He has prayed to allow the petition. 8. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides coupled with the material placed on record, it reveals that the petitioners are placing reliance upon the provisions of Street Vendors Act, for the relief claimed in the petition. Therefore at this stage, it is worthwhile to refer and to reproduce certain provisions of the said Act. The definitions of various terms which includes “Street Vendor”, “Town Vending Committee”, “Vending Zone” are provided in Section 2 thereof. Therefore at this stage, it is worthwhile to refer and to reproduce certain provisions of the said Act. The definitions of various terms which includes “Street Vendor”, “Town Vending Committee”, “Vending Zone” are provided in Section 2 thereof. The term “Street Vendor” has been defined in clause ‘l’ of Subsection 1 of Section 2 to the following effect:- “(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, sidewalk, 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;” 8.1. The term “Town Vending Committee” is defined under subclause ‘m’ of Subsection 1 of Section 2 is defined as the body constituted by the appropriate Government under Section 22 of the Act; 8.2. Regarding “Vending Zone”, it has been defined in clause ‘n’ of Subsection 1 of Section 2 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.” 9. Considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is crystal clear that, it is necessary that there must be some vending zone identified by the concerned Local Authority on the recommendation of the Town Vending Committee. Therefore, it was necessary for the petitioner to place on record that the place in question has been designated by the local authority as a vending zone. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court which was based upon the old policy of the year 2009, wherein certain directions were issued by the Apex Court. The copy of the said judgment has been produced in this matter at page no.21, in the case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and another Vs. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court which was based upon the old policy of the year 2009, wherein certain directions were issued by the Apex Court. The copy of the said judgment has been produced in this matter at page no.21, in the case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and another Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and others in Civil Appeal No.4156-4157 of 2002 and allied matters dated 09.09.2013. The reliance has been placed on para 16, especially (xv) & (xvi), which reads as under:- “16. For facilitating implementation of the 2009 Policy, we issue the following directions: “(i) to (xiv)xxxx (xv)All the existing street vendors / hawkers operating across the country shall be allowed to operate till the exercise of registration and creation of vending / hawking zones is completed in terms of the 2009 Policy. Once that exercise is completed, they shall be entitled to operate only in accordance with the orders/directions of the concerned Town Vending Committee. (xvi) The provisions of the 2009 Policy and the directions contained hereinabove shall apply to all the municipal areas in the country.” 9.1. On perusal of the aforesaid guidelines it clearly reveals that it pertains to the 2009 Policy. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in the aforesaid judgment in para 17, the Apex Court has made the following observation:- “17. The aforesaid directions shall remain operative till an appropriate legislation is enacted by Parliament or any other competent legislature and is brought into force.” 9.2. Thus, the aforesaid decision was to remain in operation till an appropriate legislation is enacted by the Parliament or any other competent Legislature and is brought into force. Now, admittedly the Parliament has passed the Street Vendors Act, 2014, which is in force. Therefore, the matter has to be decided in accordance with the new legislation and the facts of this case. 10. Now, as observed earlier in the present case, the petitioner has not produced anything on record to show that the place was declared as vending zone by the competent authority. It is also pertinent to note that prior to issuance of impugned notice of removal, there was a substantive order passed by the competent authority directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment upon the Government waste land. The copy of the said order is at page no.67 of the petition. It is also pertinent to note that prior to issuance of impugned notice of removal, there was a substantive order passed by the competent authority directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment upon the Government waste land. The copy of the said order is at page no.67 of the petition. On perusal of the said order, it clearly reveals that the replies of the petitioners have already been considered by the Mamlatdar Halol and after appreciating the material placed on record and the revenue records he has come to the conclusion that the land in question belongs to the Government and the petitioners have unauthorizedly occupied the same and have made commercial construction over the Government land. It also appears from the record that even after issuance of the said order, the authority has also issued impugned notice to the petitioners for removal of the encroachment which was made upon the Government land. It also appears from the record that as per the rojkam at page no.98 and onwards, the possession of the land has already been obtained by the concerned authority on 30.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 and the concerned persons have also passed receipts which is in the memo of the petition from page nos.104 to 110. Thus, the factum of possession of the land in question is with the Government. 11. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have not challenged the original order of the removal of encroachment as passed on 20.03.2021. They have simply challenged the impugned notice without challenging the initial order directing them to remove constructions. Of course the petitioners have produced on record certain receipts of payment of house tax, water charges paid to the concerned panchayat. It shows that they are paying some house tax and water charges to the concerned panchayat, but the payment of house tax itself suggest that it pertains to some other place. Even if it is accepted that the petitioners were doing some small business for the pilgrimage, it does not give them ownership right over the land in question. Of course, for the sake of argument, if they are treated as street vendors, however for that purpose also there needs to be some declaration of a place as vending zone by the competent authority. Of course, for the sake of argument, if they are treated as street vendors, however for that purpose also there needs to be some declaration of a place as vending zone by the competent authority. In absence of such declaration by the authority, it is doubtful as to whether the Street Vendors Act is applicable or not. 12. At the same time, if the authority concerned is doing any survey under the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, then it is necessary for the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners for issuance of some sort of certificate of vending as provided under the provisions of the Street Vendors Act. If the authority proposes to carry out such survey and to grant place as a street vendor then it is expected from the authority to consider the claim of the petitioners for the same. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, if the following order is passed it will meet ends of justice:- The petition is hereby dismissed, with the observation that if the competent authority carries out any survey under Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, then in that case, the case of the petitioners may be considered sympathetically. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.