Disposed

Saran Dass v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026CWP/16453/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A street vendor sought to quash road-infrastructure enforcement notices and protect her existing vending activity while an alternate vendor site and rehabilitation process were developed. Without deciding the merits, the Court permitted a fresh representation to the Municipal Council and directed consultation with the relevant stakeholders. The Council was to decide the representation within three weeks, and no coercive action was to be taken meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner may make a fresh comprehensive representation to respondent No. 7 within one week. Respondent No. 7 must consult the relevant stakeholders and decide it within three weeks, communicating the decision to the petitioner. No coercive action may be taken under the impugned notice meanwhile; pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed.

Saran Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16453 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.9.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Saran Dass ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Resp Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶4

	……...Petitioner
Versus
	…....Respondents

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shriyekk Sharda, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Dixt Sahotra, Advocate vice Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.7. __________________________________________________________________________

¶6

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶7

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following

¶8

main reliefs:

¶9

“Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notices/orders dated 09.07.2026, Annexures P-11, issued by Respondent No. 4 to the petitioners; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from evicting, dispossessing, demolishing or otherwise preventing the petitioner from carrying on their existing limited vending activity until the identified vending zone is developed, made functional and physically allotted, except through the procedure prescribed by the Street Vendors Act, 2014, the H.P. Street Vendors Rules and Scheme, after lawful survey, decision

¶10

¶11

of the Town Vending Committee, relocation arrangement and prescribed notice;

¶12

iii) Direct Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 to complete, within a time bound period fixed by this Hon'ble Court, the pending process for development of the vendor market/rehabilitation site at Khasra No.1002/1/1 and 1002/1/2, Mohal Khaneri, including the pending FRA/FA and allied approvals, and thereafter allot vending spaces to eligible identified vendors in accordance with law.”

¶13

2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, she is carrying on small vending activities near MGMSC Hospital, Khaneri Rampur Bushahr, over public land, alongside the National Highway No. 05. Her grievance is to the notice issued to her under Sub Rule 4 (1) (b) of the Himachal Pradesh Road Infrastructure Protection Rules, 2004, by the State Public Works Department, National Highways Sub Division Rampur Bushahr, for contravention of the prohibited Act on the road infrastructure as provided under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Infrastructure Protection Act, 2003.

¶14

3. According to the petitioner, similar notice has been issued to her previously also, when matter was brought to the notice of Municipal Council, Rampur Bushahar, seeking protection of petitioner’s livelihood visa-vis implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors Rules, 2016, and the Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors Scheme,

¶15

¶16

2016.According to the petitioner, process is underway at the end of Municipal Council, Rampur Bushahr for providing the street vendors, including the petitioner, an alternate place for her rehabilitation.

¶17

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention to the representations of the petitioner dated 10.07.2026 and 28.07.2026 (Annexures P-12 & P-13) and submitted that these representations have not yet been responded to by the respondents.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case the petitioner is permitted to make afresh comprehensive representation to respondent No. 7- Municipal Council, Rampur Bushahr and the said respondent is directed to consider and decide said representation to be preferred by the petitioner within a timebound period, in consultation with all the other stakeholders, including the State Public Works Department, National Highways Sub Division, HPPWD, Rampur Bushahr.

¶19

6. In view of above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make representation to respondent No.7 within a period of one week from today. In case such a representation is so made, respondent No.7 shall consider and decide the same after consulting/involving all other

¶20

¶21

stake holders including the State Public Works Department, National Highways Sub Division, HPPWD, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla within a period of three weeks thereafter. The decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioner. Till the disposal of representation, if any, filed, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in terms of impugned notice. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

¶22

September 21, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Saran Dass v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saran Dass v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases