Disposed

Mrs.Marimuthu, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC12 Oct 2017WP/26333/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court directed a street vendor to appear before the Town Vending Committee.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to appear before the Town Vending Committee; request to be considered within one month.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs.Marimuthu, Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶45

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a street vendor carrying on business. It is not known as to whether the petitioner has approached the Vending Committee as referred to under the various Sections of 2014 Act extracted supra. Even assuming that the petitioner has approached the said Committee, as on date, no order has been passed. While considering the representation of the petitioner, the entire provisions of the Act, more particularly, Section 2(l), which is extracted above, has got to be taken note of, for deciding the representation. Unless the Vending zone is identified by the authority on the basis of the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, the petitioner will not be able to carry on the business. Lot of restrictions have been given in the 2014 Act, more particularly, the Vending Committee will have to issue a certificate of Vending and the days and timings of carrying on such vending activities, will have to be mentioned therein. That apart, every street vendor will have to hold a certificate, by paying the vending fees, apart from renewal of certificate periodically. In case of breach of any of the conditions, there shall be cancellation or suspension of certificate of vending. Referring to Sections 1 and 2 of the 2014 enactment and contending that the petitioner has got a right to be a street vendor, cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as lot of restrictions are given and that unless and until the place is identified in terms of the provisions of the Act. If the petitioner has got a right to do business, then duty is cast on the respondent to issue certificate and not to disturb him. Even though the petitioner has come forward with an innocuous prayer to dispose of the representation, such a prayer is not going to make any useful purpose except creating one more litigation. Hence, this Court has referred to the provisions of the Act and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Vending Committee and if the petitioner does not satisfy the norms and conditions prescribed by the Vending Committee to carry on the business, she cannot be granted the licence. If the petitioner approaches the Vending Committee to carry on the business, her request shall be considered within a period of one month from the date of her appearance before the Committee.

Mrs.Marimuthu, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sheela Clinic Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

Mr. a.Senthil Kumar Vs The Secretary

M.Thayar, Vs The District Collector

P.Ramasamy Vs 1.THE Govt.of Tamilnadu Rep.

Mrs.Marimuthu, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sheela Clinic Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

Mr. a.Senthil Kumar Vs The Secretary

M.Thayar, Vs The District Collector

P.Ramasamy Vs 1.THE Govt.of Tamilnadu Rep.

A compact analysis

R.Kunjammal Vs District Collector

A.M.Rajan Vs The Corporation of Chennai