Dismissed

M.Ezhumali, v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Oct 2023WP/19854/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, a vendor with a valid identity card challenged police and Panchayat interference in his roadside coconut business. The High Court held that possession of an ID card does not justify encroachment on public roads. The respondent authorities are directed to identify an alternative vending zone if the petitioner is found eligible rather than forcing immediate removal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be permitted to carry on business in a vending zone to be identified by respondents if eligible; no encroachment on public pathway allowed.

M.Ezhumali, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No. 19854 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P. No. 19854 of 2018

M. Ezhumalai

..Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶13

Thirukovilur Town Panchayat, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, Thirukovilur Police Station, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District.

¶15

The Sub-Inspector of Police (Traffic), Thirukovilur Police Station, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District. ..Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

¶17

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P. No. 19854 of 2018

¶20

for issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering

¶21

in the business of the petitioner by selling coconuts and pooja materials from

¶22

his coconut shop situated outside the Ulagalantha Perumal Kovil in the shop area on the way to temple abutting the Thirukovilur Sankarapuram Main Road and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.05.2018 seeking to grant permission to restore the

¶23

shop as it stood all along to sell coconuts.

¶24

For Petitioner :: Mr.S. Ramajayam

¶25

For Respondents :: Mr.J. Ravindran Addl. Advocate General Assisted by Mr.A. Selvendran

¶26

Special Government Pleader for respondents 1, 3 and 4

¶27

Mr.V. Kadirvelu for R2

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(Made by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)

¶30

The present writ petition has been filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering in the business of the petitioner by selling coconuts and pooja materials from his coconut shop situated outside the Ulagalantha Perumal Kovil in the shop area on the way to temple abutting the Thirukovilur Sankarapuram Main Road and 2\7

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P. No. 19854 of 2018

¶33

consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.05.2018 seeking to grant permission to restore the shop as it stood all along to sell coconuts.

¶34

According to the petitioner, he has put up a coconut shop outside the Ulagalantha Perumal Temple and he has been running the shop since 1985 for the past 33 years. It is his further case that he has been issued with street vendor’s identity card for road side vendors by the 2^nd respondent and that his business has been recognized and registered with the 2^nd respondent. He has paid necessary charges for which receipt has been issued by the Panchayat. He has also produced the receipts and the photographs showing that he has been carrying on the activity in the vending zone. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are interfering in his business and not allowing him to sell coconut and pooja materials while others similarly placed like him have not been disturbed. Though he submitted a representation dated 14.05.2018 to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District on 14.05.2018, no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶35

On the other hand, the petitioner’s case has been refuted

¶36

3\7

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P. No. 19854 of 2018

¶39

by the 2

¶40

by the 2^nd respondent stating that eventhough the petitioner has been issued

¶41

with the identity card, the petitioner has encroached on Thirukovilur Sankarapuram Main Road and put up a small shop with a temporary shed. According to the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, As per the counter, the petitioner has encroached upon the road, which is a busy road and it affects the free flow of traffic. No other shops were permitted to encroach upon road side and disturb the traffic. The Commissioner of Thirukovilur Municipality has stated that in the non-vending zone, the petitioner is carrying on his business activity, which affects the free flow of traffic and hence, the same has got to be removed.

¶42

In response, the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Sections 13 and 18 of Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and contended that in case the petitioner is found to run the business in a non-vending zone, an alternative place will have to be given and such a place may be identified by the respondents for which necessary charges will be paid.

¶43

Heard both parties.

¶44

4\7

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P. No. 19854 of 2018

¶47

The fact that the petitioner is selling coconuts and pooja items

¶48

abutting the temple on Thirukovilur Sankarapuram main road and that the respondents have issued identity card and that tax has been paid by the petitioner is not in dispute. However, it does not mean that by using the identity card, the petitioner is entitled to encroach upon the road margin and continue his business activities. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner has encroached upon the road portion and that such encroachment is not permissible. In case, the petitioner is eligible to carry on the activities in a vending zone, it is open to the respondents to identify the vending zone in order to enable the petitioner to carry on his business of selling of coconuts and pooja items.

¶49

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that it is

¶50

open to the parties to identify as to whether the petitioner is an encroacher and in case, he has encroached upon the public property, he has got to be removed forthwith and an alternative vending zone may be identified wherein he is entitled to carry on its business activities.

¶51

5\7

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P. No. 19854 of 2018

¶54

It is brought to the notice of this Court that licence of the

¶55

petitioner has expired and eventhough he is willing to pay the necessary tax for renewal of licence, the same is yet to be renewed. We make it very clear

¶56

that in case, the petitioner is entitled to carry on business activities as claimed by him, he is permitted to do so in a vending zone, which may be identified by the respondents. We reiterate that no person much less the petitioner is entitled to encroach upon any public pathway for the purpose of carrying on business activities on the ground that he has paid tax and having an identity card. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected W.M.P. is closed.

¶57

(S.V.N.J) (K.R.S.J.) nv 18.10.2023

¶58

S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.

AND

K. RAJASEKAR,J.

The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶64

6\7

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P. No. 19854 of 2018

¶67

Thirukovilur Town Panchayat, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District.

¶68

W.P. No. 19854 of 2018

¶69

The Inspector of Police, Thirukovilur Police Station, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District.

¶70

The Sub-Inspector of Police (Traffic), Thirukovilur Police Station, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District.

¶71

18.10.2023

¶72

7\7

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Ezhumali, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ezhumali, v. The District Collector

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

Samuthrakulam Abiviruthi Vs 1.THE District Collector

V.Sambandan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.

P. Gnanasekaran Vs the Secretary

A/M Kumbeswarar Koil Vs the Commissioner

M.Manjula Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

K.Venkatasamy Vs The District Collector