Gopal Kumar and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 18886 of 2026

Gopal Kumar And 14 Others

	Versus .....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 4 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Navin Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶5

Court No. - 21

¶6

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶8

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

¶9

"a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.09.2023, 11.10.2023, 18.10.2023, 09.11.2023 and 08.01.2024 passed by respondent no.4.

¶10

b) Issue a writ order or direction in the to the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2, 3 and 5 to protect the petitioners from destruction of their vending items and carts etc. by the respondent from their sites of squatting /vending as per the mandate of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood And Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 Notification/ Government Order dated 15.06.2017 of the Chief Secretary for implementation of Section 3 (3) of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

¶11

c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of parity relief allowing the present humble petition of petitioners in view of settled position in civil misc. writ-C no. 27130 of 2024 Sohan Kumar Das and 29 others Versus state of U.P. and 3 others.

¶12

WRIC No. 18886 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

d) Issue nature a writ order or direction in the of mandamus directing to the respondents to give the benefit of the office order dated 03.09.2021 and 10.09.2021 (Which is annexed as Annexure no.2 to this writ petition) to the present petitioners for issuance of vending certificate."

¶15

The petitioners being street vendors claim 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 Vending) Rules 2018.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are street vendors and in most arbitrary manner, the claim of petitioners was rejected by the respondent authority as they have 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 petitioners is squarely covered under the Act of 2014.

¶17

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 petitioners were 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

WRIC No. 18886 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶24

May 14, 2026

¶25

Sumit S

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gopal Kumar and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Kumar and 14 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Malik Education Society and Another vs the State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Smt Raj Kumari Prasad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Daya Shankar Pathak vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Smt Sushma Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Om Prakash Singh and 16 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Khaderu and Another vs Union of India and 4 Others