Allowed

R. Alagarsamy (Died) v. the Secretry to Govt.

Madras HC11 Aug 2023WP(MD)/19039/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by street vendors seeking a stay on relocation or eviction. The Court held that the local authority must conform to the due process of law, specifically Section 18 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were allowed to be relocated or evicted only after strictly conforming to the procedure mandated under Section 18 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.

R. Alagarsamy (Died) Vs the Secretry to Govt. — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.19039 OF 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.19039 & 21560 of 2015 AND M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2015

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.19039 of 2015

¶8

R.Alagarsamy(Died)

¶9

Selvaraj

¶10

2.Gowsalya

¶11

Sangeetha

¶12

4.Alamelu

¶13

Kavitha

¶14

(Petitioners 1 to 5 are suo motu impleaded vide order dated 21.07.2023) ... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,

¶17

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶18

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 002.

¶19

The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶20

The Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirappalli, Trichy District.

¶21

1/3

¶22

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

¶23

2 W.P.(MD)NO.19039 OF 2015

¶24

The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from relocating or shifting or evicting the petitioner from Door No.80 and 82, Chatram Bus stand, Trichy to Karur Main Road (Opposite to water tank), Srirangam Zone, Trichy Corporation, Taxation No.200274 and 200275 without following Section 18 of the Street Vendors(Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014.

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.21560 of 2015

¶28

Jeyalakshmi ... Petitioner

¶29

Vs.

¶30

The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 002.

¶31

The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶32

The Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirappalli, Trichy District.

¶33

The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy. ... Respondents

¶34

2/3

¶35

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

¶36

3 W.P.(MD)NO.19039 OF 2015

¶37

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from relocating or shifting or evicting the petitioner from Door No.80 and 82, Chatram Bus stand, Trichy to Karur Main Road (Opposite to water tank), Srirangam Zone, Trichy Corporation, Taxation No.200272 without following Section 18 of the Street Vendors(Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014.

¶38

(in both WPs.) For Petitioners : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, for Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar.

¶39

For R-1, R-2&R-4: Mrs.K.Christy Theboral, Additional Government Pleader. For R-3 : Mr.R.Baskaran, Senior Counsel, for M/s.R.B.Law Associates. * * *

¶40

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4.

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

¶44

4 W.P.(MD)NO.19039 OF 2015

¶45

The petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.19039 of 2015 passed away and his legal heirs have been brought on record.

¶46

The petitioners herein are eking out their livelihood as street vendors. The expression “ street vendor” is defined in Section 2(l) of the Central Act 7 of 2014 in the following terms:-

¶47

“ “street vendor” means a person

¶48

engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares,

¶49

food items or merchandise of everyday use or offering services to the general public, in a street, lane, side walk, footpath, pavement, public park or any other public place or private area, from a temporary built up structure or by moving from place to place and includes hawker, peddler, squatter and all other synonymous terms which may be local or region specific; and the words “street vending” with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly; ”

¶50

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

¶51

4/3

¶52

5 W.P.(MD)NO.19039 OF 2015

¶53

It can be seen therefrom that even a person doing

¶54

his business from a temporary built up structure in a street would be called as street vendor. Section 18 of the Act reads as follows:-

¶55

“ RELOCATION AND EVICTION OF

¶56

STREET VENDORS-

¶57

(1) The local authority may, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, declare a zone or part of it to be a no-vending zone for any public purpose and relocate the street vendors vending in that area, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.

¶58

(2) The local authority shall evict such street vendor whose certificate of vending has been cancelled under section 10 or who does not have a certificate of vending and vends without such certificate, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.

¶59

(3) No street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority from the place

¶60

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

¶61

5/3

¶62

6 W.P.(MD)NO.19039 OF 2015

¶63

specified in the certificate of vending unless he has been given thirty days’ notice for the same in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.

¶64

(4) A street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority physically in such manner as may be specified in the scheme only after he had failed to vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice.

¶65

(5) Every street vendor who fails to relocate or vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice, shall be liable to pay for every day of such default, a penalty which may extend up to two hundred and fifty rupees, as may be determined by the local authority, but shall not be more than the value of goods seized.”

¶66

The only prayer in the writ petition is that they should not be relocated or shifted or evicted except by

¶67

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

¶68

6/3

¶69

7 W.P.(MD)NO.19039 OF 2015

¶70

following the procedure set out in the aforesaid provision.

¶71

No exception can be taken to the said request. The Corporation, Trichy is directed to conform to due process of law, particularly, Section 18 of the Central Act 7 of 2014 while dealing with the petitioners herein. These writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶72

11.08.2023

¶73

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No

¶74

PMU

¶75

To:

¶76

The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 002.

¶77

The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶78

The Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirappalli, Trichy District.

¶79

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

¶80

7/3

¶81

8 W.P.(MD)NO.19039 OF 2015

¶82

The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.

¶83

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶84

PMU

¶85

W.P.(MD)No.19039 of 2015

¶86

11.08.2023

¶87

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

¶88

8/3

R. Alagarsamy (Died) v. the Secretry to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Alagarsamy (Died) v. the Secretry to Govt.

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

Rajkumar .S Vs Nithiyanathan .a

Palaniammal, Vs the Chair Person

S. Mohamed Noor Khan Pani, Vs the Commissioner

Meiaram, Vs Rajmohan

Raja Mohamed.J Vs a. Arumugam

Balasubramanian Vs The Inspector of Police