Petitioners challenged the interference of a Society and the validity of a rule affecting street vending. The Court issued notice to the Town Vending Committee to verify vending zone status and authority jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4408 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sachin Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aishvarya Mathur,Amar Singh,Mudit Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma,Ratnesh Chandra
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite parties no. 3, 4 and
6 by Shri Anuj Kudesia, Advocate and on behalf of opposite party no.5 by Ms. Kavita Mishra, Advocate, are taken on record.
2. Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Aishvarya Mathur appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (1) SCC 490 : Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and others Vs.
Muncipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and others , which dwelt on the subject of street vending and how their activities are to be permitted and regulated. In pursuance thereof, an enactment, namely, Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, has been framed. Under the said enactment, the Town Vending Committee has been bestowed with certain duties including earmarking of
spaces i.e. 'vending zone' as defined in Section 2 (n).
Submission is that the petitioners herein are Street Vendors, who have certificates and identity cards for carrying out the activities in terms of the said Act and the rules made by the State Government in pursuance thereof, in a zone known as ' Chatori Gali ', which is a vending zone determined by the Town Vending Committee as is evident from the letter of the Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Lucknow dated 21.11.2020 (Annexure-17). However, a Society, which is opposite party no.6 herein, is interfering in the activities of the petitioners, demanding fees and also interfering in their functioning, which is impermissible as the said Committee, which is a Society, has no jurisdiction to interfere in vending activities permitted under the aforesaid Act, 2014 and the rules made thereunder by the State Government. Though a Society, it is in fact Government controlled.
3. It is also his submission that some of the provisions based on the rules are in the teeth of the substantial provisions contained in parent Act, under which the rules have been made, such as Rule 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2017, therefore, it should be declared utlra vires .
4. Shri Kudesia disputes these factual and legal submissions and says that the area where street vending activities are being
carried out by the petitioners, in fact, is not earmarked as a
vending zone by the competent authority i.e. the Town Vending Committee.
5. None is representing the Town Vending Committee/opposite party no.2. Shri Kudesia appears for opposite parties no. 3, 4 and 6. Ms. Kavita Mishra appears for opposite party no.5 but not for opposite party no.2 as informed by her.
6. Let dasti notice be issued to petitioners for service upon opposite party no.2.
7. Counsel for opposite party no.5 shall also communicate our order to the Chairman, Town Vending Committee, who, as informed, is the Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow.
8. Opposite party No.2 shall inform this Court on the next date as to whether the area in which petitioners' claim to be carrying on vending activities, has been declared as a vending zone in terms of Section 2 (n) of the aforesaid Act, 2014 and shall produce relevant proof in this regard. He shall also inform this Court as to whether petitioners herein have been issued identity cards and certificates as envisaged in the aforesaid Act, 2014 and also as to what authority does the opposite party no.6 have to interfere in the activities of street vendors within the vending zone. Shri Kudesia should also address the Court on this issue on the next date.
9. List this case on 23rd May, 2024, as fresh , showing the name
of Shri Anuj Kudesia as Counsel for the opposite parties nos. 3,
4 and 6 and Ms. Kavita Mishra as Counsel for the opposite party no.5 in the cause list.
10. In the meantime, all authorities are expected to follow the Act, 2014 and rules made thereunder strictly and not to deviate from the same.
11. As vires of Rule 25 of Uttar Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2017 made under Section 36 of the Central enactment 2014, is under challenged, we provide that notice be issued to learned Advocate General through the office of the Chief Standing Counsel by e-mode. Senior Registrar of this Court should also do the same by the same mode, which include Whatsapp etc.
( Om Prakash Shukla, J. ) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 17.5.2024 Ajit
Digitally signed by :- AJIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the area where petitioners claim to carry out vending activities has been designated as a vending zone under the Act.
Whether the Society has jurisdiction to interfere in the activities of street vendors within the vending zone.
Whether Rule 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Street Vendors Rules, 2017 is valid in light of the Central Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sachin Singh And Others
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Lko.
Town Vending Committee
Society
Rajan Roy
Om Prakash Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
