Partly allowed

Ramesh Chaurasia v. Urban Development Department

Jharkhand HC18 Nov 2019WPC/4977/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a disgruntled street vendor, challenged an eviction order issued without a survey. The High Court quashed the order, directed a survey within two months, and barred eviction pending the survey outcome, mandating accommodation based on the survey results.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of eviction order; direction to complete survey within two months; stay on eviction pending survey; direction to consider petitioner for vending zone accommodation post-survey.

Ramesh Chaurasia Vs Urban Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 4977 of 2015

Ramesh Chaurasia

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

Ranchi Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi

¶9

The Assistant Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi … … Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

	-----
For the Petitioner	: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-State	: Mr. D.C. Mishra, Sr. SC-III
For the Respondent-RMC	: Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate

¶12

-----

¶13

13/18.11.2019 The petitioner who claims to be one of the displaced shopkeepers of Rangrej Gali, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi praying for quashing the entire proceeding including the order contained in memo no. 150 dated 18.08.2015 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 3 – the Assistant Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi in Encroachment Case No. 07/2015, whereby it has been alleged that the said order has been passed illegally and arbitrarily against the statutory provisions under Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2014”). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities not to evict/relocate the petitioner from the existing place till the survey is completed as required under Section 3(3) of the Act, 2014.

¶14

2. According to the petitioner, he is a street vendor carrying on his business at Rangrej Gali, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi since last 20 years which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 124/2015 dated 28.07.2015 issued notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has encroached over M.S. Plot No. 1676 by putting a “gumti” over it. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply by presenting himself on 10.08.2015. The petitioner along with other members of the “Ranchi Footpath Dukandaar Hawkers Sangh” made a representation on 10.08.2015. The petitioner also filed his reply to the said notice dated

¶15

¶16

28.07.2015. However, the respondent no. 2 without considering reply of the petitioner issued the impugned order dated 18.08.2015 asking the petitioner to vacate the encroachment made on the land within a week, failing which the process for his eviction under Section 606(2) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 would be taken and the cost thereof for removing the same would also be recovered from him.

¶17

3. A counter affidavit dated 21.11.2015 has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 – Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi stating inter alia that the provisions of the Act, 2014 provides for the survey of street vendors, plans for development of city street vending and infrastructure development of vending zones among other things. Pursuant to floating of an e-tender, vide tender notice no. 451/NULM dated 11.05.2015, one Samman Foundation has been awarded the aforesaid works vide agreement dated 06.10.2015 and work order dated 12.10.2015. It has further been stated that for the purpose of re-habilitation of the vendors, a vendor market is being constructed at “Madhukam”, Ranchi in which 404 street vendors sitting in the nearby foot-path and streets will be settled. It is further submitted that a vendor market is to be constructed on the southern side of the Jaipal Singh Stadium, Ranchi. The State Government vide letter no. 175 dated 24.02.2015 informed the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi to implement the provisions of the Act, 2014 and now the work is being carried on as per the provisions of the Act, 2014.

¶18

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶19

5. The Central Legislature has promulgated the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 to protect the rights of urban street vendors and to regulate street vending activities and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The claim of the petitioner is that he is a street vendor at Rangrej Gali since last 20 years and the respondents are not following the provisions of the Act, 2014 while evicting him. However, the respondent no. 2 has specifically stated that they have already taken steps to carry out the provisions of the Act, 2014.

¶20

6. Thus, the respondents are directed to complete the survey of the petitioner’s shop within two months from the date of the order and

¶21

¶22

till conclusion of the same, the petitioner shall not be evicted in pursuance of order passed vide memo no. 150 dated 18.08.2015 in Encroachment Case No.07/2015 (if not already evicted). So far as the accommodation of the petitioner in the vending zone is concerned, the respondents are directed to treat the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2014 and other related schemes on the basis of the outcome of the said survey.

¶23

7. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation/direction.

¶24

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶25

Manish

Ramesh Chaurasia v. Urban Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chaurasia v. Urban Development Department

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

Sheojee Dubey Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board

Raj Narayan Raj Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board through Its Chairman and Ors.

M/S.Builders Association of in Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nand Kishore Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Shivam Construction Vs Jharkhand Police Housing Corpo

Kamal Kumar Jhunjhunwala Vs Central University of Jharkhand and Ors.