Petitioner challenged notice shifting her vending zone. Court refused quash but directed authorities to decide pending representation within 30 days sympathetically considering her business status.
Notice not quashed; authorities directed to decide pending representation within 30 days.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 1604 of 2024
Amla Sahani W/o Agnu Sahani Aged About 40 Years R/o Mahua Bazar, Dumar Talab, P.S. - Amanaka, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation Of Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Officer In - Charge Dindayal Antyoday Yojna, National Urban Livelihood Mission, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents
(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Shriwas, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P. L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
1 9.03.2024
1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 01.12.2023 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the Municipal Corporation, Raipur has earmarked a place under Amanaka Over Bridge, Raipur as a vending zone for the petitioner. The vending zone is within the area of Zone No. 7 of Municipal Corporation, Raipur.
2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was carrying on her business in Zone No. 5, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, she has been directed to shift to Zone No. 7 of the Corporation and it will affect her business as the petitioner is a street vendor. It is further argued that the petitioner has made representation before the authorities of the Municipal Corporation and the same is pending, but no decision has been taken yet.
2
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Mr Pankaj Agrawal would submit that the petitioner has been allotted a vending zone within the same area. He would further submit that on one side of the road, there is Zone No. 5 and on the other side Zone No. 7 exists. He would also submit that the petitioner has been shifted from one side of the road to another side, whereas, the locality is the same. It is also contended that if any representation made by the petitioner is pending before the Municipal Authorities, the same would be considered in accordance with the law.
4. Mr. Shubham Bajpai would support the contentions put forth by Mr. Agrawal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a street vendor and she is carrying on her business near Ayurvedic College Gate, Raipur. A decision was taken by the Municipal Corporation to shift the street vendors to appropriate places and consequently, the petitioner was directed to shift her business below Amanaka Over Bridge, Raipur which falls within the area of Zone No. 7. It is not a case where the petitioner is being deprived of her right to carry on her business, but in the present case she is being shifted from one place to another, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation dated 01.12.2023 cannot be quashed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach Municipal Authorities for redressal of her grievance(s). It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already made representation before the Municipal Authorities, therefore, at this stage, the Municipal Authorities are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3
7. The Municipal Authorities shall take an appropriate decision sympathetically taking into consideration the status of the petitioner and her business.
8. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition stand disposed of.
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Ajinkya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice directing a street vendor to shift within the same vicinity from one zone to another can be quashed.
Whether the petition can be disposed of while directing authorities to decide the pending representation expeditiously.
Amla Sahani
Municipal Corporation Of Raipur
Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development
Officer In - Charge Dindayal Antyoday Yojna
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
