Allowed

Mydeen Pitchai v. the Commissioner

Madras HC19 Jul 2021WP(MD)/6598/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought mandamus to issue a vending certificate and renew a street vendor identity card. The Court directed the Corporation to process pending applications, identify eligible vendors under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, and permit only those granted certificates to continue vending until an alternate shopping complex in 2022 is ready. The identification process was mandated to be

What did the court decide?

Directed the Corporation to identify eligible vendors and issue identity cards and vending certificates under Rule 7 and 8 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 within four weeks.

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

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.6598 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.07.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.6598 of 2021

Mydeen Pitchai

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶11

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

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue vending Certificate and renew the Street vendor identity card to the petitioner for doing his street vending business in front of Halal Press, Opposite to RMKV, North Car Street at Tirunelveli Town by considering his applications, dated 04.02.2021.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar for R1 Standing Counsel

¶14

Mr.M.Lingadurai for R2 Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue vending Certificate and renew the Street vendor identity card to the petitioner for doing his street vending business at North Car Street.

¶17

2.The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted that the petitioner is not possessing any Identity Card or a Vending Certificate and he has merely given a representation and filed the writ petition based on the said representation.

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.6598 of 2021

¶21

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.

¶22

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 his livelihood.

¶23

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.

¶24

6.In the case of the petitioner, he do not possess any identity card or Vending Certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a very specific stand that the petitioner has also submitted the application for renewal of identity card and Vending Certificate. The respondent Corporation is directed to process the applications received and identify the street vendors who will be entitled for the identity card and vending certificate 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 or Vending Certificate 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 of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

7.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.6598 of 2021

¶32

NOTE:

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.6598 of 2021 19.07.2021

¶38

SGS(CO) TR(27.07.2021) 3P 3C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Mydeen Pitchai v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mydeen Pitchai 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

Grama Munnettra Sangam, Vs the State Rep.by the Secretary

Mathina Vs K.Senthilraj

Narayanasamy Naicker Vs S.Raja Hussain

Arumugam. M Vs The Inspector General of Registration

A. Sakthi @ Natarajan, Vs the Sub Registrar

Manikandan Vs the Commissioner