Dipak Mandal Vs Municipal Corporation of Raipur

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 387 of 2024

¶5

Dipak Mandal S/o Sapan Mandal Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Joyti Nagar, Kota, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Municipal Corporation Of Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

2. Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

3. Officer In-Charge Dindayal Antyoday Yojna, National Urban Livelihood Mission, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For State/respondent No. 2 : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

2 9.01.2024

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier WPC No. 1334 of 2018 was filed before this Court seeking a direction to municipal authorities to issue street vending identity cards in Municipal Corporation, Raipur under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood & Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 wherein vide order dated 15.05.2018, the petition filed by petitioner and a batch of petitions were disposed of thereby directing the Municipal Corporation, Raipur to strictly follow the provisions of the Act, 2014 and provide a place in the vending zone to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. She would further submit that a proposal was given by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur on 29.11.2022 and a list of vending zones was also annexed to that notice. She would also submit that the petitioner had opted for “Nalanda Parisar” but the respondent authorities vide notice dated 01.12.2023 again changed the vending zone with regard to the petitioner and have sought a consent letter. She would further contend that now the Municipal Corporation, Raipur has proposed to allot the vending zone under Amanaka Bridge to the petitioner. She would also contend that neither the petitioner had opted for that place nor the place proposed by the authorities

¶16

2

¶17

is appropriate for vending, therefore, notice dated 01.12.2023 may be quashed and a direction may be issued to the authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation, Raipur would submit that there are more than a thousand vendors in the Raipur Municipal area and it is not possible to allot vending zones as per their choice, therefore, a decision was taken by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur to allot the vending zone to all the vendors. He would further submit that the Municipal Corporation, Raipur has identified certain places and some have been approved by the Committee constituted under the Act, 2014. He would also submit that the petitioner has been allotted a vending zone under Amanaka Bridge which cannot be held arbitrary or discriminatory.

¶19

Mr. Gupta, Government Advocate for the State would support the contention put forth by Mr. Dubey.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶21

Taking into consideration the fact that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, a proposal was given by Municipal Corporation, Raipur on 29.11.2022 along with a list of vending zones and the petitioner had opted for “Nalanda Parisar” but without assigning any reason or affording any opportunity of hearing, respondent authorities again issued a notice and changed the option of the petitioner which is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, therefore, notice dated 01.12.2023 is hereby set-aside/quashed. The Municipal authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the petitioner is permitted to carry out his business/activity where he was carrying out earlier; however, the petitioner shall not create any hindrance in the smooth traffic movement.

¶22

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶23

siddhant

Dipak Mandal v. Municipal Corporation of Raipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Mandal v. Municipal Corporation of Raipur

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

Avinash Tripathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Sanjita Barman Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Asmita Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Legend Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Loknath Nayak Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Abhay Barua Vs State of Chhattisgarh