Disposed

Rajeswari v. the Commissioner

Madras HC19 Jul 2021WP(MD)/6782/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing respondents to issue a vending certificate. Court directed respondents to process pending applications under Rule 7 and 8 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 within four weeks and permit only those granted certificates to trade.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Corporation to process application for vending certificate within four weeks under Street Vendors Act, 2014.

Rajeswari Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.6782 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.(MD).No.6782 of 2021

Rajeswari

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli.

¶10

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

¶11

... 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 to the petitioner for doing her street vending business Opposite to Pothys, North Car Street at Tirunelveli Town by considering her application, dated 12.02.2021.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar for R1 Standing Counsel Mr.M.Lingadurai for R2 Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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 Identify cards and Vending Certificates 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.

¶18

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

¶19

1/2

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.6782 of 2021

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

6.In the case of the petitioner, she do not possess any Vending Certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a very specific stand that the petitioner has also submitted the application for 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 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.

¶24

7.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

// True Copy //

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.

¶29

¶30

The Commissioner, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli.

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.6782 of 2021 19.07.2021

¶33

RC(30.07.2021)2P-3C

¶34

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

¶35

2/2

Rajeswari v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeswari 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