Allowed

Valliammal v. the Commissioner

Madras HC14 Jul 2021WP(MD)/4628/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that until an alternate vending place is ready for 2022, only identified vendors with identity cards can operate. The Corporation was directed to process identity card applications under the 2014 Act and grant them within four weeks to protect the petitioner's livelihood.

What did the court decide?

Corporation directed to process identity card applications and permit eligible vendors to continue vending within four weeks.

Valliammal Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.4628 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.07.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.4628 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD).No.3736 of 2021

Valliammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli. 2.The Chairman, Town Vending Committee, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli City. 4.The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town Police Station, Tirunelveli City. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from disturbing the petitioner's street vending business located between Pothys Godwon and Rajalakshmi Shoe Mark, opposite to Pothys, North Car Street at Tirunelveli City, except due process of law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar for R1 Standing Counsel Mr.M.Lingadurai for RR2 to 4 Government Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

1/3

¶14

W.P.(MD).No.4628 of 2021

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from disturbing her in carrying on with her vending business at North Car Street.

¶17

2.The Commissioner of Tirunelveli Corporation has filed a counter affidavit in this case. A specific stand has been taken to the effect that the petitioner is not possessing any Identity Card or a Vending Certificate and she has merely given a representation and filed the writ petition based on the said representation.

¶18

3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submitted that the alternate accommodation will be considered only for those persons, to whom the Identity cards have been issued by the Corporation. It is submitted that persons who have not been identified by the respondent Corporation will not have any right to carry on with the vending business and they do not have the right to be given an alternate accommodation.

¶19

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on an earlier occasion, the respondent Corporation had informed before this Court that totally 559 vendors have been identified, out of which Identity cards have been issued to only 195 members and the remaining members will be identified and Identity cards will be given to them. Having taken such a stand, the respondent Corporation without issuing the Identity card, cannot deprive the petitioner of her livelihood.

¶20

5.In the considered view of this Court, the alternate place that has been identified will get ready only in the year 2022. Till then, the respondent Corporation will be able to accommodate only those persons, who have been identified and Identity cards have been issued. Those persons alone can be allowed to carry on with the vending business till the alternate place is made ready.

¶21

6.In the case of the petitioner, she do not possess any identity card. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a very specific stand that the petitioner has also submitted the application for identity card. The respondent Corporation is directed to process the applications received and identify the street vendors who will be entitled for the identity card in accordance with Rule 7 and 8 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and permit them alone to continue with the street vending business till the alternate place is made ready. None of the others who is not found to be eligible and not granted the identity card shall be allowed to do the vending business. This process shall be completed by the respondent Corporation, within a period of four weeks from the date

¶22

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

¶23

2/3

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.4628 of 2021

¶25

of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

7.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

¶32

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶33

¶34

1.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli.

¶35

2.The Chairman, Town Vending Committee, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.

¶36

3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli City.

¶37

4.The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

¶38

W.P.(MD).No.4628 of 2021 14.07.2021

¶39

LR (30.07.2021) 3P 5C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

Valliammal v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valliammal 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

Srinivasan Raja.B@ Suresh.B Vs District Collector

Sasikumar.M Vs the Dist.Revenue Officer

Madasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanthi.E Vs the District Collector

S.Kanaga, W/O Sethupillai Vs the District Revenue Officer

Suleka Banu Vs the Commissioner