Dismissed

Mysore District Street v. the Director

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2021WP/21862/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a registered Association seeking restraint against illegal eviction of street vendor members was dismissed as not maintainable, relying on Apex Court precedent that Associations lack fundamental rights for such petitions.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought was withdrawn; liberty granted to approach Civil Court or file representation before the Town Vending Committee.

Mysore District Street Vs the Director — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.21862 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MYSORE DISTRICT STREET VENDORS ASSOCIATION ® NO.2, 1^ST FLOOR V.V.MARKET, K.R.MOHALLA MYSURU – 570 004 BY ITS SECRETARY ... PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9^TH FLOOR, V.V.TOWER DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶10

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570 001

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYSURU – 570 001 ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI P.B.ACHAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SMT. M.P.GEETHA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS RESTRAINING THE THIRD RESPONDENT FROM EVICTING THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION ILLEGALLY WITHOUT FOLLOWING SECTION 18

¶16

¶17

OF THE STREET VENDORS (PROTECTION OF LIVELIHOOD AND REGULATION OF STREET VENDING) ACT AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioner in the guise of an Association called Mysore District Street Vendors Association ® seeking for a direction restraining third respondent, Commissioner, Mysuru Mahanagara Palike from evicting the members of the petitioner-Association illegally without following Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶21

Petitioner is a registered Association and the members of it are from the socially weaker section who are unable to get regular job and the same is registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is the grievance of the petitionerAssociation that respondent No.3 is evicting the members of the petitioner-Association from the place of their business and accordingly, this petition is filed seeking for an order of restrainment by the third respondent without reverting to Section 18 of the Act.

¶22

¶23

Respondent No.3 has filed a detailed statement of objections contending that primarily, the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is an Association and no writ petition would be maintainable by an Association as held by the Hon’ble Apex court. It is further stated by respondent No.3 that pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Act has been enacted for the betterment and welfare of the street vendors and respondent No.1 has issued guidelines to all the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioners of all Mahanagara Palike to follow their guidelines in respect of urban street vendors. In pursuance to the same, the Corporation has taken steps to implement and constitute a town vending Committee consisting of officials from various Departments including Corporation and the members from the street vendors zones. The Corporation has even conducted a survey to identify persons who are vending on the street and issued identity card and vending certified post on QR code.

¶24

It is further stated that hawking zones have been identified wherein the street vendors are permitted to sell in the prescribed designated hawking place based on their ID cards. It is also stated that there is a ban on hawking in the non-

¶25

¶26

hawking zone area for which periodical assessment and reviews have been conducted by the respondents. In fact, respondent No.3 has stated that various welfare measures have been adopted by way of sanctioning, disbursement of loan and training programmes and other activities have been undertaken under the National Urban Livelihood Mission and also providing loans to the street vendors under the said scheme. In fact, the respondents are trying to relocate the street vendors to the designated hawking place, so that they could avoid squatting illegally on footpaths and causing inconvenience to the general public, thereby the State Government and respondent No.3 are taking effective measures to remove the encroachment on pedestrian footpaths to make the footpaths available for the use of pedestrians.

¶27

Smt.M.P.Geetha Devi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that the petitioners herein do not have any inherent right to seek any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She further contends that they have not shown before this Court as to who are the members and what are their avocation and in which area, they are vending. In the

¶28

¶29

absence of all these, this petition is vague and deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that a suit in O.S.No.145/2019 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Mysuru has been filed by the Karnataka State Street Vendors Mahamandala, represented by its President for similar relief as sought for in the present petition, which would indicate that the petitioner has already agitated in a civil suit before the Court at Mysuru.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate also contends that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahinder Kumar Gupta v. Union of India reported in (1995)1 SCC 85 wherein, it is held that the Association cannot file a writ petition as it has no fundamental right under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The said aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be provided to the petitioner to file necessary representation before the Committee formulated by respondent No.3 for issuance of ID cards and designated place and

¶33

¶34

providing the same to the concerned members who are in the business of street vending.

¶35

In view of the submission and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra , there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed on a short point of being not maintainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶38

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach

¶39

the Civil Court either to implead himself or to file necessary representation before the Committee to address the grievance

¶40

for the necessary relief as sought for in this petition.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE