Disposed

Rajajinagar III Block v. the Commissioner of Police

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2021WP/12666/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hawker association petitioned to quash endorsement and issue NOC for vending. Acknowledging rights under Division Bench orders, court directed petitioners to renew licence and seek NOC from Police, with consideration within three months, prohibiting footpath encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to renew licence and seek NOC; respondents to consider within three months; no immediate NOC granted.

Rajajinagar III Block Vs the Commissioner… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.12666 OF 2017 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJAJINAGAR III BLOCK FOOTHPATH VEGETABLE HAWKERS’ ASSOCIATION ® REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT S.K.RAMAKRISHNA S/O.KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 17^TH MAIN, III BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010

¶9

S.K.RAMAKRISHNA S/O.KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS FOOTHPATH VENDOR AND PRESIDENT OF RAJAJINAGAR III BLOCK, FOOTHPATH VEGETABLE HAWKERS’ ASSOCIATION ® 17^TH MAIN, III BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010

¶10

R.UDAYA KUMAR S/O.LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS FOOTHPATH VENDOR AND SECRETARY OF RAJAJINAGAR III BLOCK, FOOTHPATH VEGETABLE

¶11

¶12

HAWKERS’ ASSOCIATION ® 17^TH MAIN, III BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RAJAJINAGAR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010

¶17

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010

¶18

BRUHATH BENGALURU amended as per Court MAHANAGARA PALIKE Order dated 24.03.2017 REPRESENTED BY COMMISISIONER HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 01 …. RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.01.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petitioners have preferred this petition seeking to quash endorsement dated 18.01.2017 vide Annexure-K passed by second respondent and for issuance of No Objection Certificate to petitioners to do their business of vending through moving cart in the specified jurisdictional hawking zone.

¶26

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition is as under:

¶27

The first petitioner is a registered association of Foot Path Vendors i.e., hawkers at Rajajinagar III Block. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the Foot Path Vendors and also the President and Secretary of first petitioner-Association. The petitioners state that third petitioner has obtained licence from BBMP for doing vending in the hawking zone of the specified area provided in Bengaluru city, which has expired on 17.07.2002. The petitioners have been doing hawking business as push cart vendors with necessary licence provided by BBMP. Due to inconvenience caused to

¶28

¶29

general public by petitioners squatting on footpath for vending as hawkers, a writ petition in WP.No.58723/2015 came to be filed by public spirited person and same was registered as a Public Interest Litigation. In the said petition, the issue arose with regard to hawkers doing their business in a specified area with licence. The Division of this Hon’ble Court while disposing of the said PIL, has passed the following order:

¶30

“9. Footpaths are meant for movement of the pedestrians. It must be clean and free. It is true that the area is a hawker zone. The hawkers may do their business in moving carts, but must leave the place in the evening after cleaning the area.

¶31

10. We do not appreciate the generosity of the authorities in permitting the hawkers to raise permanent structures to do their business. The footpath must be cleared and the hawkers must do business in moving carts without encroaching the foot path or the road side drain.”

¶32

¶33

The sum and substance of the order was that the hawkers were restrained from doing their business on footpath and they were permitted to carry on their business in moving carts in the jurisdictional specified area provided by second respondent by way of licence, but they should leave the place in the evening after cleaning the area and it was ordered that they should not encroach the foot path or the road side drain.

¶34

The petitioners relying on this judgment stated that they may be allowed to do business in moving carts without encroaching the footpath or the road side drain and accordingly, the petitioners have submitted a representation to the third respondent-BBMP dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure-E). The said representation is still pending consideration and no order has been passed. It is also stated by petitioners that a representation has also been submitted to the second respondent dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure-H). Pursuant to representation submitted by petitioners, the third respondent issued an

¶35

¶36

endorsement on 05.01.2017 (Annexure-J) directing the petitioners to approach jurisdictional Police to obtain No Objection Certificate. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the second respondent seeking NOC and instead of issuing NOC, the petitioners were directed to obtain permission from third respondent-BBMP.

¶37

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners have already secured licence for doing their business of hawking and despite submitting representations before second and third respondents, both respondents have driven the petitioners to each of other officers/authorities to obtain necessary licence and NOC rather than providing licence and NOC. Learned counsel further contends that hawking zone has already been specified for the area from 41^st Cross to 47^th Cross of 17^th Main, Rajajinagar, which is not disputed by third respondent. Learned counsel further contends that in the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in PIL, it has been clearly held that hawkers and vendors like the petitioners

¶38

¶39

would do their business without encroaching footpath or the road side drain. If any dispute or objection arises, respondent Nos.2 and 3 to provide necessary permission by way of licence for NOC and they carry hawking business in the specified area with necessary licence. Therefore, he contends that endorsement issued in Annexure-K requires to be quashed and direction requires to be issued to the respondents to provide NOC for petitioners to carry on their business in the specified area i.e. 41^st Cross to 47^th Cross of 17^th Main, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru as per the licence issued to them.

¶40

Per contra , Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that admittedly, the licence which was obtained by petitioners has expired on 17.07.2002 and he contends that licence would be renewed as and when representation is made for renewal of licence to the person seeking extension of licence. In the present case, though petitioners have given representation for permitting them to do their business of

¶41

¶42

hawking in the area specified supra , for which the Commissioner, BBMP has issued a note on 15.09.2016 (Annexure-F) to the Joint Commissioner and concerned jurisdictional Health Officers of the area coming within Bengaluru City to direct the petitioners to follow the necessary guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners have not made any application for renewal of licence and if any such application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶43

He further contends that the third respondent does not have any objections to any of the hawkers possessing a valid licence to conduct their day-to-day business in the specified area provided, they should follow necessary guidelines stipulated by the third respondent

¶44

and he further contends that apart from this, the petitioners are required to take necessary permission and NOC from the jurisdictional Traffic Police to do their dayto-day activities.

¶45

¶46

Smt.Shilpa S.Gogi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends that petitioners have not submitted any representation to the appropriate authority before whom necessary permission and NOC has to be sought, whereas the petitioners have submitted a representation to the Inspector of Police, Rajajinagar Police Station on 16.11.2016 (Annexure-H), who is not the authority to issue NOC for permission for doing business. To the said representation at Annexure-H, the second respondent has given an endorsement stating that petitioners will have to approach the third respondent and the concerned jurisdictional Traffic Police are authorized to issue NOC for doing their day-to-day vending business. Therefore, she contends that firstly, the petitioners will have to file the necessary application for renewal of licence and secondly, they have to approach the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer, in which area they want to do their hawking business, thirdly, they have to approach the

¶47

¶48

jurisdictional Traffic Police Station for securing necessary NOC.

¶49

In the present case on hand, since the application for renewal of licence has not been made to the concerned authorities, the question of considering the same has not arisen, nevertheless, learned counsel for respondents, in unison, submit that if any such application is made by the petitioners for renewal of licence for hawking and vending before the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer, the Assistant Revenue Officer and the jurisdictional Traffic Police Station, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶50

Placing the said submission of learned counsel for respondents, learned counsel for petitioners submits that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer and the Assistant Revenue Officer coming under the third respondent and the jurisdictional Traffic Police Station

¶51

¶52

coming under the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners.

¶53

In view of the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court, which is the inherent right, the State is duty bound to provide employment and opportunity to the petitioners to do their business. However, they should be made in accordance with the Rules and Regulations stipulated by the concerned authorities-the respondents herein which has already been specified in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and also Rules and guidelines framed by the State.

¶54

For the aforestated reasons, I pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The petitioners shall make representation for renewal of their licence before the third respondent;

¶57

(ii) The petitioners shall seek for permission/NOC from the jurisdictional Traffic Police Station;

¶58

¶59

(iii) On receipt of the above, the same shall be considered by respondents within a time frame of three months from the date of representation given by the petitioners herein, strictly in accordance with the rules regulations specified and the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench of this Court;

¶60

It is made clear that if any such permission is granted, the petitioners shall not squat or encroach on the foot path causing inconvenience to the pedestrians/public.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Rajajinagar III Block v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajajinagar III Block v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ullas Anant Baadkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Wali Ahmed Shareef Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Parisista Jhati Mattu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S M Acharya Vs the Karnataka State Commission

E Padmanabha Vs Deputy Conservator of Forests

M/S. Vigneshwara Transport Vs the State of Karnataka