Disposed¶9

Mithlesh Mahto and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2025WRIC/22147/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vendors; vending zone Noida Sector 57; Noida Authority allotment letters 2019; FSSAI registration; Food Safety Act 2006; Street Vendors Act 2014 Sections 18(3) and 27; harassment by Junior Engineer Mukesh Tyagi; representation to CEO Noida dated 03.06.2025; writ disposed with direction to CEO Noida to examine grievance within six weeks after hearing affected persons; Allahabad High Court; Mahesh Chandra Tripathi J; Vinod Diwakar J; 2025:AHC:112138-DB.

What did the court decide?

Examination of the petitioners' grievance by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida within six weeks from communication of the order, along with a fresh representation, after hearing the petitioners or any other person likely to be affected thereby. ¶9

Mithlesh Mahto and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the grievance of the petitioners — street vendors operating petty food shops at allotted vending sites in Sector 57, Noida, alleging harassment and attempted displacement by Junior Engineer Mukesh Tyagi in violation of Sections 18(3) and 27 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 — should be examined and redressed.

¶6

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the grievance of the petitioners shall be examined by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida within six weeks from the date of communication of the order, along with a fresh representation, after hearing the petitioners or any other person likely to be affected thereby.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 29), Division Bench of Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Vinod Diwakar, JJ. — WRIT - C No. 22147 of 2025, decided 14.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:112138-DB). Nine petitioners operating petty food shops at Vending Zone-6, Work Circle-5, Sector 57 (C-22), Noida, possessing FSSAI registration under the Food Safety Act, 2006 and allotted the vending sites by the Noida Authority through 2019 allotment letters, alleged harassment and attempted displacement by Junior Engineer Mukesh Tyagi, claiming violation of Sections 18(3) and 27 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014; grievances had been raised before the Chief Executive Officer, Noida vide letter dated 03.06.2025. As the Authority's Tribunal had no Judicial Officer posted, counsel for the Development Authority submitted that the Chief Executive Officer could examine the grievance. The Court disposed of the petition directing the Chief Executive Officer, Noida to examine the grievance within six weeks of communication of the order, on a fresh representation, after hearing the petitioners or any other person likely to be affected.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112138-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22147 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mithlesh Mahto And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Development Authority and Mrs. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners have been continuously operating petty shops dealing in food items at Vending Zone-6, Work Circle-5, Sector 57 (C-22, in front of Airtel Company), Noida, and possess valid FSSAI registration under the Food Safety Act, 2006. They were allotted these vending sites by the Noida Authority through allotment letters issued in 2019 and have been regularly paying rent and electricity bills. Identity cards were also issued to them upon completion of formalities. Despite this, Junior Engineer Mukesh Tyagi recently inspected their shops, initially permitting their operation but later attempted to displace them without justification. The petitioners, aggrieved by such harassment and violation of their rights under Sections 18(3) and 27 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, have raised their grievances before the Chief Executive Officer, Noida, vide letter dated 03.06.2025.

¶7

Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Development Authority, states that the Tribunal is headed by a Judicial Officer and at present no Judicial Officer is

¶8

posted in the Authority and therefore he submits that if this Court permits, the Chief Executive Officer, Noida will examine the grievance of the petitioners and take appropriate decision.

¶9

Accordingly and having regard to the facts of the instant case, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the grievance of the petitioners shall be examined by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida within six weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with a fresh representation after hearing the petitioners or any other person likely to be affected thereby.

¶10

Order Date :- 14.7.2025

¶11

NLY

¶12

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mithlesh Mahto and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithlesh Mahto and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases