Allowed

A.Devi v. The Commissioner

Madras HC1 Mar 2017WP/5053/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus directing the Corporation of Chennai authorities to consider the petitioner representation for a vending license under the Street Vendors Act 2014 and restrain coercive action against her shop pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the Vending Committee to consider the representation within three months and refrain from coercive action against the petitioner in the meantime.

A.Devi Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.03.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.HULUVADI G.RAMESH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.No.5053 of 2017

¶7

A.Devi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings
Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Chairperson/
Zonal Executive Engineer Zone No.9
(The Township Vending Committee)
Corporation of Chennai
Chennai - 600 034. .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2017 as per the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood Regulation) Act 2014 made for granting permission/Certificate of Vending and till such time not to disturb with the running of the petitioner's bunk shop at No.1, Binny Road, Near Quald Millath Compound, Chennai - 600 002.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kamaraj

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by the Acting Chief Justice)

¶12

Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2017 as per the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood Regulation) Act 2014 made for granting permission/Certificate of Vending and till such time not to disturb with the running of the petitioner's bunk shop at No.1, Binny Road, Near Quald Millath Compound, Chennai - 600 002.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that she is running a bunk shop at No.1, Binny Road, Near Quald Millath Compound, Chennai - 600 002. However, it is alleged that the respondent/authorities are interfering with the running of the bunk shop. The petitioner made a representation on 27.1.2017 seeking issuance of license to run the bunk shop and to forbear the authorities from interfering with the running of the shop. However, the said representation did not evince any response. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶17

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, suffice it to direct the Vending Committee constituted vide G.O. (4D) No.5, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MCI) Department, dated 05.10.2016, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.1.2017 and pass appropriate in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. All the grounds urged in this petition can be raised before the Committee.

¶18

sasi

¶19

To:

¶20

The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai - 600 003.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

The Chairperson/

¶23

Zonal Executive Engineer Zone No.9 (The Township Vending Committee) Corporation of Chennai

¶24

Chennai - 600 034.

¶25

+1cc to Government Pleader sr.14182

¶26

+1cc to Mr.R.Kamaraj,Advocate sr.13356

¶27

W.P.No.5053 of 2017

¶28

sv1(co) ss(9/3/2017)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Devi v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Devi v. The Commissioner

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

Kanimozhi Mathi Vs The Commissioner

Sakila, Vs The Commissioner

D.Elangovan, Vs The Commissioner

B.Rajkumar, Vs Indian Bank

M.Hemalatha Vs v.Balasundaram

M/s.New Chennai Township Pvt. Vs Chief General Manager