Disposed

Manju Vishwakarma v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024WRIC/22253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking quashing of the rejection of the petitioner's claim for a vending area and a direction to provide a space and license under the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The Supreme Court of Allahabad High Court disposed of the petition by applying the earlier judgment of this Court in Ratan Yadav, where similar relief was not granted at the interim stage due to pending survey and

What did the court decide?

Nothing was granted; the petition was disposed of by applying the preceding judgment.

Manju Vishwakarma vs State of Up and 3 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114855-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22253 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Manju Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶7

The present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for the following relief:-

¶8

"(a) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated order dated 19.10.2023 passed by respondent no.3, by which the respondent Noida Authority has rejected the claim of petitioner.

¶9

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to provide the suitable space and vending license as per the Rule and Regulation of Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014."

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench this Court in Ratan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.16906 of 2024, dt. 20.05.2024) and as such, it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioners. For ready reference, the order dated 20.05.2024 is reproduced herein as under:-

¶11

"1. Heard Sri Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Manohar Sahai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶12

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

¶13

"(a) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.11.2023 application no.198 of 2023.

¶14

(b) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to respondent no. 2 and 5 to provide similar benefit to the petitioner as provided by order dated 20.01.2024 in application no. 1005 of 2024 as well as benefit of office order dated 03.09.2021 which is (Annexure no. 2&4) to this writ petition."

¶15

3. The petitioner being a street vendor claims allotment of vending area under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending Act, 2014 (in short the 'Act 2014') read with Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street

¶16

Vending) Rules 2018.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is a street vendor and in most arbitrary manner, the claim of petitioner was rejected by the respondent authority as he has carried out vending in the vending zone as per survey. He has placed reliance upon the order dated 01.05.2024, which is brought on record alongwith supplementary affidavit. He submits that the said order had been passed in response to the order dated 31.10.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.32279 of 2022 (Ratan Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and the claim of petitioner is squarely covered under the Act of 2014.

¶18

5. Per contra, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for NOIDA Authority has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that in view of Act 2014, the survey was conducted, wherein, it was found that 7652 vendors were working in various zones, out of which 4936 persons were already allotted places in the vending zone. He submits that at the time of survey, the petitioner was not carrying out the work in the vending zone. Firstly, the endeavour of the Authority is to rehabilitate the remaining vendors in the vending zone and thereafter the new survey would be carried out, then only the fresh area would be earmarked.

¶19

6. Considering the aforesaid factual situation, we do not find any reason to discard the survey report and the objection of Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh is sustainable. It is always expected that the Authority must settle the vendors, who are found in the survey and actually performing or carrying out business at the roadside.

¶20

7. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to quash the order impugned. Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to press the relief under the Act, 2014 at the appropriate stage.

¶21

8. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of."

¶22

The above said argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is not being disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the respondent-Development Authority.

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Ratan Yadav (supra).

¶24

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 A. Pandey

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manju Vishwakarma v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Vishwakarma v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Gupta and 4 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Dinesh Bajpai vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nagar Nigam Varanasi vs Rinki Gupta and 14 Others

Ashok Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Awadhesh Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others

M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises vs State of Up and 3 Others