Disposed

Mamta Mishra v. Municipal Corporation Indore

Madhya Pradesh HC22 Jun 2016WP/8119/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenges the removal of hawker stalls and seizure of goods by Indore Municipal Corporation. The court held that vendors have a right to livelihood but must operate within legally notified zones and zones' holding capacities. The petition is disposed of as respondents are expected to follow the Act's licensing and zoning provisions.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief directing return of seized material and prohibiting coercive action was mentioned; final petition disposed of without specific relief granted to petitioners.

Mamta Mishra Vs Municipal Corporation Indore — Service and Employment | Madhya Pradesh HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT

¶3

INDORE

¶4

D.B: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE P.K.JAISWAL & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8119/15

¶6

MAMTA MISHRA W/O SANJYA MISHRA & OTHERS Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE & OTHERS

¶7

Ms.Shanno Shagufta Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Manoj Munshi, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 5.

¶8

Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, Dy.A.G for respondents No.2, 3 & 4.

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

(Passed on 22.06.2016)

¶11

Per Vivek Rusia, J:

¶12

Petitioners have filed the present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation challenging the action of the Municipal Corporation, Indore by which hawkers/vendors have been removed from the government land/road and seized their goods. Petitioners have alleged that hawkers/vendors to meet their daily needs

¶13

are running their business activities in various places of Indore city since last

¶14

-2-

¶15

number of years by way of stalls, Thela, Gumti etc. In the month of July, 2015 the Indore Municipal Corporation started drive for seizing the hawker stalls and removing them permanently. It is further submitted that their rights are protected under section 18(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act of 2014' ) under which no street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority from the place specified in the certificate of vending unless he has been given 30 days notice for the same in such a manner as may be specified under the Scheme. By the act of the respondents about thousand stalls (Telas) have been completely seized and 700-800 were partly damaged. It is alleged that when the petitioners approached the respondents for return of their seized material illegally taken and when they could not fulfill their illegal demand by the petitioners, they could not get their articles back, hence the present petition has been filed before this Court seeking the relief in the nature that respondents be directed not to remove and dispose of or

¶16

-3-

¶17

shift their place of business and further command them to provide alternate place and compensate them for their losses. They have also prayed the relief by way of command to the respondents/authorities to implement the Act of 2014. In support of the petition petitioners have filed various photographs, paper news and the representations and the affidavits of hawkers.

¶18

After notice respondents filed return and submitted that petitioners have misinterpreted the provisions of the Act of 2014 as the intention of the legislature was not to allow the street vendors to block the roads, footpaths, pavements and invite traffic jam, accidents and public inconvenience. As per the Act of 2014 the city can be divided into two zones viz., (i)vending zone and (ii)no-vending zone and the same have been defined in the Act also. Under section 12(2) of the Act of 2014 the street vendors are allowed to carry out their business only in vending zone. There are holding capacity of the vendors in a vending zone which is to be decided by the local authority and the vendors are defined in the Act viz., mobile vendors, stationary

¶19

-4-

¶20

vendors and street vendors. Under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Path Par Vikray Karne Valo Ki Jivika Ka Sanrakshan Aur Vikray Ka Viniyaman Adhiniya, 2011 (for short 'the Act of 2011' ) and the Act of 2014 a survey was conducted to identify and declare vending zones in the city and the Town Vending Committee has passed a resolution declaring various areas of the city as (i)Green Zone (means free vending zone (ii)Yellow Zone (means restricted vending zone) (iii)Red Zone (means no vending zone) and (iv)Mobile Zone (where moving hawkers can carry out vending activities).

¶21

It is submitted by Shri M.Munshi, counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation that under the statute both the Central as well as State street vendors are allowed to carry out their vending activities in the area specified by the local authority. The Municipal Corporation, Indore has specified the area in four zones in which the vendors can carry out their business but under the garb of their business they cannot be permitted to block the roads/pathways and create traffic jams in the city due to which

¶22

-5-

¶23

general public would suffer. He has further submitted that the Municipal Corporation has already returned the seized material to their owners after due verification in most of the cases. The balance materials are

¶24

available in the premises of the Municipal Corporation and the same would be handed over after due verification of the ownership to the vendors free of cost and no demands have been made by their officers. He has submitted that the entire petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

By way of interim relief dated 02.12.2015 Indore Municipal Corporation was directed to return the seized material of the hawkers expeditiously on filing proper applications along with the documents as the undertaking was given by the Corporation for the returns of the carts seized by the Corporation. By way of interim relief it was directed that nothing coercive shall be done till the next date of hearing if the petitioners carry on their business strictly in accordance with the provisions and within the permissible

¶27

-6-

¶28

zones as per Annexure R-1/4. In our considered opinion though the hawkers have their fundamental right to run their business and to earn their livelihood in the city, but it is the Municipal Corporation and the Administration to see whether the said activities are being carried out under the four corners of the law. The hawkers are not permitted to do their activities in any part of the city according to their choice. For the said purpose the Municipal Corporation has notified the areas for hawkers activity. The petitioners and the similarly placed hawkers are permitted to do their vending activities within the free vending zones i.e. Green Zone, Yellow Zone and Mobile Zone. The holding capacity of the zone is also prescribed. Under the Act the licenses are being issued to the vendors by the local authorities. The vendors who have the valid license can do their activities if they are having licenses and doing their activities in the zones prescribed for that and no action can be taken against them because it the duty of the respondents also to maintain law and order in the city. Section 28 of the Act of

¶29

-7-

¶30

2014 is having a penal provision under which any street vendor indulging in vending activities without a certificate of vending, contravenes the terms of certificate or contravenes any other terms and conditions specified for the purpose of regulating street vending under the Act or any rules or schemes made thereunder shall be liable for penalty in the nature of fine. Protection has also been granted to the vendors under section 27 of the Act which reproduced below:

¶31

27.Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no street vendor who carries on the street vending activities in accordance with the terms and conditions of his certificate of vending shall be prevented from exercising such rights by any person or police or any other authority exercising powers under any other law for the time being in force.

¶32

Under this section if the vendor is having a certificate then no person or police or any other authority can prevent him from doing his business, therefore, the complete Code has been provided for protection of the rights of the street vendors by the Legislature. Therefore,

¶33

-8-

¶34

petitioners as well as respondents are expected to act in accordance with the Act of 2014. Since the Act provides for issuance of licenses and doing the vending activities in the zone specified the petitioners or similarly placed vendors may apply for issuance of the certificate before the competent authority and if such application is filed the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. If the vendors are having certificates and doing their business activities within the zone specified by the Corporation no action is liable to be taken against them.

¶35

In the above terms the petition is disposed of.

¶36

Respondents/Corporation may be right in taking action against the hawkers who are vending in restricted areas without licenses. Apart from these vendors there are other shop owners in market who are using the public road and government land for their business purposes. Most of the time they occupy more space over the government land/road than their shop area. They display their material over the

¶37

-9-

¶38

footpaths for sales. They park their vehicles outside the shop over the government land. Travel agents and taxi owners run their business in office but park their vehicles over public road and footpaths. Mechanics and automobile spare parts sellers also occupy much area for repairing vehicles over the road. If the Municipal Corporation is acting under the Law for removing the hawkers in the garb of traffic jam and law and order then it is expected that they should act against these businessmen and shop owners also who are doing their business from their shops but using the public road and government land for their business purposes.

¶39

In view of the above, petition is disposed of.

¶40

(VIVEK RUSIA) J U D G E

¶41

hk/

Mamta Mishra v. Municipal Corporation Indore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Mishra v. Municipal Corporation Indore

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