Disposed

Anjali Devi v. the Commissioner

Madras HC6 Sept 2024WP/25062/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider her vending application under the Street Vendors Act. The Court directed the Town Vending Committee to decide the application on merits within three months. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Town Vending Committee to consider the petitioner's application and decide it on merits within three months.

Anjali Devi Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.25062 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

W.P.No.25062 of 2024

Anjali Devi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶11

The Zonal Officer (Zone No.10) Corporation of Chennai (The Township Vending Committee) Near Power House, Kodambakkam Chennai – 600 024.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 17.07.2024 made for grant of permission / certificate of vending and till such time not to interfere with the running of the petitioner's bunk shop at No.134, North Usman Road, Opposite to Kalyan Jewellery, near Sarada Vidyalaya School Compound, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017, wherein selling tea, coffee, snacks, tiffin, cool drinks and other food items therein.

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶15

For the Respondents : Mr.E.C.Ramesh Standing Counsel

¶16

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

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

W.P.No.25062 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) The petitioner has made an application dated 17.07.2024

¶21

under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, in proper format to the respondents, especially the second respondent, being the Town Vending Committee and in order to consider the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus.

¶22

Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar , learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.C.Ramesh , learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶23

Learned Standing Counsel would submit that since the application has been made in the prescribed format, the Town Vending Committee would consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶24

Having regard to the said submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the respondent Town Vending Committee to consider the application of

¶25

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

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

W.P.No.25062 of 2024

¶28

the petitioner dated 17.07.2024, made in the prescribed format, and decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶32

drm

¶33

To:

¶34

The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶35

The Zonal Officer (Zone No.10) Corporation of Chennai (The Township Vending Committee) Near Power House, Kodambakkam Chennai – 600 024.

¶36

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

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

W.P.No.25062 of 2024

¶39

R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

(drm)

W.P.No.25062 of 2024

06.09.2024

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

¶44

Page 4 of 4

Anjali Devi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali Devi 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

Maria Kannagi Silai Sirukadai Vs The Principle Secretary to Government

C.Gopi Vs The state Commissioner

R.Kasthuri, Vs The Chennai Corporation

S.Selvaraj Vs S.Raja Mohamed

R.Kala Vs the Commissioner

Salai Saranya Vs the Secretary to the Government