Dismissed¶17

Khazana Vyapar Mandal Society Thru. Chairman/Auth. Representative Shivram Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2026WPIL/323/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

street vendors; no vending zone; vending zone; Nagar Nigam; survey pending; Section 21(2) read with Para 3(e) First Schedule; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014; PIL dismissed for want of statutory pleadings; liberty to file afresh; Khazana Vyapar Mandal Society; State of U.P.; Writ-C No.9096 of 2025 Amar Kumar Sonkar order dated 29.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh after acquainting himself with the factual and legal position, with necessary pleadings. ¶17

Khazana Vyapar Mandal Society Thru. Chairman/Auth. Representative Shivram Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh after acquainting himself with the factual and legal position, with necessary pleadings.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Public Interest Litigation was entertainable when the petitioner was unable to address, and the petition did not refer to, the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Section 21(2) read with Para 3(e) of the First Schedule of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Court was not inclined to entertain the P.I.L. and dismissed it, granting the petitioner liberty to file afresh after acquainting himself with the factual and legal position, with necessary pleadings.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

As informed by counsel for the Nagar Nigam, the process of survey was still on, meaning thereby the requirements of law envisaged in Section 21(2) and the First Schedule of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 had not been completed; consequently, how a no vending zone could be said to have been declared, as claimed by the petitioner, was a moot point.

¶13

Key takeaways

Counsel for the Nagar Nigam stated that the area has not been declared as no vending zone and it is a vending zone.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla, JJ.) dismissed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 323 of 2026 filed by Khazana Vyapar Mandal Society through its Chairman/Auth. Representative Shivram Lal against the State of U.P. and others. On being asked to address the statutory provisions, the petitioner was unable to do so; the petition did not refer to Section 21(2) read with Para 3(e) of the First Schedule of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, provisions earlier considered by a coordinate Bench in its order dated 29.01.2026 in Writ-C No.9096 of 2025, Amar Kumar Sonkar and others vs. State of U.P. and others. Counsel for the Nagar Nigam informed the Court that the statutory survey was still ongoing, so the requirements of Section 21(2) and the First Schedule were incomplete, making the petitioner's claim of a declared no vending zone a moot point; the area was stated to be a vending zone, not a no vending zone. The P.I.L. was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh after acquainting himself with the factual and legal position, with necessary pleadings.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 323 of 2026

¶3

Khazana Vyapar Mandal Society Thru. Chairman/Auth. Representative Shivram Lal

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Lko. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shailendra Singh Chauhan

¶9

Court No. - 1

¶10

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel for the State-respondents and Mohd. Hamza Shamim, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5.

¶12

The petitioner on being asked to address on the provisions of law specially the statutory provisions was unable to do so. In fact, we do not find any reference in this writ petition which has been styled as Public Interest Litigation to the relevant provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, specially Section 21 (2) read with Para 3(e) of the First Schedule which has been considered by a coordinate Bench of which one of us (Rajan Roy, J.) was a member and an order was passed on 29.01.2026 in Writ-C No.9096 of 2025; Amar Kumar Sonkar and others vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶13

We have been informed by the counsel for the Nagar Nigam that the process of survey is still on, meaning thereby, the requirements of law, as envisaged in Section 21(2) and the First Schedule, have not been completed as yet, therefore, it is a moot point as to how no vending zone has been declared, as is being claimed by the petitioner, based on which this petition has been filed.

¶14

WPIL No. 323 of 2026

¶15

¶16

At this stage, counsel for the Nagar Nigam says that the area has not been declared as no vending zone and it is a vending zone.

¶17

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this P.I.L. and it is hereby dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file afresh after acquainting himself with the factual and legal position, with necessary pleadings.

¶18

April 15, 2026

¶19

akhilesh/-

¶20

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Khazana Vyapar Mandal Society Thru. Chairman/Auth. Representative Shivram Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khazana Vyapar Mandal Society Thru. Chairman/Auth. Representative Shivram Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaya Mati Thru.President Smt.Saima Khan Advocate vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting New Delhi India and 4 Others

Vijay Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 14 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. a.C.S./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health U.P. Lko. and 3 Others vs Santosh Kumari and 163 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others vs Sadashiv Yadav

Dal Chandra Bhaskar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko and 3 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others vs Onkar Giri