Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Junaid and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

Home
Allahabad HC
2020
Junaid and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 OthersJunaid and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Disposed¶13

Junaid and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2020WRIC/9342/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vendors; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; Section 27; temporary hawkers' licence; vending area application; NOIDA / Noida Development Authority; Sector 6, Noida; harassment by police and local authorities; disposal on same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020 (Jay Singh and 04 others Vs. State of UP and 04 others); conditions: no construction and no obstruction of traffic; respondent no. 2 to consider claim in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on the same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020 (order dated 3.2.2020): if the petitioners apply for vending area under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, their claim would be considered by respondent no. 2 in accordance with law; vendors, like the petitioners, to neither raise any construction nor obstruct traffic on the road.

Why is it important?

This writ petition is disposed of on the same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020, disposed of by order dated 3.2.2020, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties. ¶13

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of on the same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020 (order dated 3.2.2020): if the petitioners apply for vending area under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, their claim would be considered by respondent no. 2 in accordance with law; vendors, like the petitioners, to neither raise any construction nor obstruct traffic on the road.

Issue for consideration

Whether this writ petition should be disposed of on the same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020. +1 more

Court's answer

This writ petition is disposed of on the same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020, disposed of by order dated 3.2.2020, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties.

Ratio / Principle

Adopted term of disposal: if the petitioners apply for vending area under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, their claim would be considered by respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Adopted term of disposal: vendors, like the petitioners, will neither raise any construction nor obstruct traffic on the road.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by Junaid and 8 others, vendors doing business in Sector 6, Noida claiming protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (including Section 27 protection against harassment of licensed vendors), disposed of (bench of Manois Misra and Piyush Agrawal JJ., order dated 9.7.2020) on the same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020 (Jay Singh and 04 others Vs. State of UP and 04 others, order dated 3.2.2020): if the petitioners apply for vending area under the 2014 Act, their claim would be considered by respondent no. 2 (NOIDA) in accordance with law; and it was made clear that vendors, like the petitioners, will neither raise any construction nor obstruct traffic on the road.

A

Court No. - 50

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9342 of 2020

Petitioner :- Junaid And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghvendra Pratap Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

Sri Raghvendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents -1, 3 and 4 and Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh, representing respondent-2 (NOIDA) are in agreement that similar controversy as raised in this petition was raised in Writ C No. 3447 of 2020 (Jay Singh and 04 others Vs. State of UP and 04 others), which was disposed of by order dated 3.2.2020.

The order dated 3.2.2020 passed in Writ C No. 3447 of 2020 is extracted below:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the Noida Development Authority and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioners claim that they are vendors and for their livelihood doing business in Sector 6, Noida. The grievance is that they are not being allowed vending in the said sectors by the order of local authorities. The petitioners are seeking protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The petitioners are claiming protection under Section 27 of the said Act which is with regard to the prevention of harassment by police and other authorities of vendors who have valid license. The petitioners claim that they have a temporary hawkers' license and unless they are provided an appropriate place, they cannot be harassed or stopped from doing their business.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that applications have been invited from all the hawkers and vendors to apply for vending area and in case petitioners apply, their claim would be considered.

The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that if the petitioners apply for vending area under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, their claim would be considered by the respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.

It is made clear that vendors, like petitioners, will neither raise any construction nor obstruct traffic on the road."

The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that this petition be disposed of on the same terms.

In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of on the same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020, disposed of by order dated 3.2.2020, extracted above.

Order Date :- 9.7.2020 Rahul Dwivedi/-

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether this writ petition should be disposed of on the same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020.¶12
The court held
This writ petition is disposed of on the same terms as Writ C No. 3447 of 2020, disposed of by order dated 3.2.2020, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties.ratio¶13
2.
Whether the petitioners, vendors doing business in Sector 6, Noida claiming temporary hawkers' licences, are entitled to protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including consideration of their applications for vending area and protection from harassment by police and other authorities.medium confidence¶8
The court held
Adopted term of disposal: if the petitioners apply for vending area under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, their claim would be considered by respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.ratio¶10

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Jay Singh and 04 others Vs. State of UP and 04 othersFollowed¶12
Writ C No. 3447 of 2020

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014¶8 27¶8

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Similar controversy as raised in this petition was raised in Writ C No. 3447 of 2020 (Jay Singh and 04 others Vs. State of UP and 04 others), which was disposed of by order dated 3.2.2020.¶5
Prior proceeding
By the order dated 3.2.2020 in Writ C No. 3447 of 2020, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that if the petitioners applied for vending area under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, their claim would be considered by respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.¶10
Prior proceeding
The same order dated 3.2.2020 clarified that vendors, like the petitioners therein, would neither raise any construction nor obstruct traffic on the road.¶11

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Junaid And 8 Others¶3
Raghvendra Pratap
respondent
State Of U.P. And 3 Others¶3
C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh

Coram

AI extract

Manoj Misra, J.member¶4
Piyush Agrawal, J.member¶4

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Allahabad HC
Decided on: 9 Jul 2020 · July
Registered: 9 Jun 2020
Case no.: WRIC/9342/2020
CNR: UPHC010545872020
Bench: Manoj Misra Piyush Agrawal
Disposal: Disposed off/Decided on merits
Case type: WRIT - C

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Manoj Misra Piyush Agrawal

Vyas Singh Yadav @ Vyas Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others
8 Jul 2020
Umesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others
8 Jul 2020
Ved Ram Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others
8 Jul 2020
Ram Lal Vs State of U.P. and 31 Others
9 Jul 2020
Harivaksh Singh and Another Vs the District Magistrate and 5 Others
9 Jul 2020
Naim Vs State of U P and 3 Others
9 Jul 2020

Cite this judgement

Junaid and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others, WRIC/9342/2020 (ALL), decided on 9 July 2020.

The Allahabad High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Jay Singh and 04 others Vs. State of UP and 04 othersFollowed¶12

Open Authorities

Statutes2

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 · 27

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Similar controversy as raised in this petition was raised in Writ C No. 3447 of 2020 (Jay Singh and 04 others Vs. State of UP and 04 others), which was disposed of by order dated 3.2.2020.
By the order dated 3.2.2020 in Writ C No. 3447 of 2020, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that if the petitioners applied for vending area under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, their claim would be considered by respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Manoj Misra, J. and Piyush Agrawal, J.

Parties & counsel