Dismissed¶37

L.Preethisha v. the Commissioner

Madras HC8 Sept 2025WA/1/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vending; non-vending zone; eviction notice; unlicensed ice cream parlour; transgender vendor; tricycle vending; Corporation of Chennai / Greater Chennai Corporation; Street Vending Committee; Executive Engineer; licence/permission to vend; allotment of shop in corporation commercial buildings; writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; intra-court appeal; W.P.No.24353 of 2021; writ appeal dismissed without costs; Madras High Court; S.M.Subramaniam J.; C.Saravanan J.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal stands dismissed with no costs, affirming the writ court's liberty to the appellant to seek licence/permission or shop allotment through proper application. ¶37

L.Preethisha Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal stands dismissed with no costs, affirming the writ court's liberty to the appellant to seek licence/permission or shop allotment through proper application.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Validity of the notice issued by the Executive Engineer, Street Vending Committee, Corporation of Chennai, directing eviction of the appellant's unlicensed ice cream parlour. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The impugned notice is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

A licence from the competent authority is required for commissioning an ice cream parlour in a public place.

¶31

Key takeaways

The subject location falls under the non-vending zone; therefore, the court finds no infirmity in the notice issued.ratio¶31
No person can be allowed to commission illegal construction, parlours or bunk shops etc., which would cause inconvenience to road users and the public at large.ratio¶31
The writ court was right in granting liberty to the appellant to approach the authorities for licence/permission to sell ice creams in a vending zone or for allotment of a shop.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (W.A.No.1 of 2022, decided 08.09.2025) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the writ order dated 17.11.2021 in W.P.No.24353 of 2021 — dismissed. The appellant, a transgender vendor selling ice cream from a tricycle at Virugambakkam, Chennai, had challenged a notice issued by the Executive Engineer, Street Vending Committee, Corporation of Chennai, for eviction of her unlicensed ice cream parlour. The Division Bench held the notice to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules; held that a licence from the competent authority is required to commission an ice cream parlour in a public place; and found that the subject location falls under a non-vending zone, leaving no infirmity in the notice. The writ court's grant of liberty to apply for licence/permission for vending in a vending zone/permitted area, or for allotment of a shop in corporation commercial buildings, was affirmed. The Court observed that no person can be allowed to commission illegal construction, parlours or bunk shops causing inconvenience to road users and the public at large.

¶1

W.A.No.1 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.A.No.1 of 2022

¶7

L.Preethisha … Appellant(s)

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶10

The Chairman cum Executive Engineer, Street Vending Committee, Corporation of Chennai, Revenue Department, Zone – 11, No.123, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087.

¶11

The Divisional Engineer, Division No.128, Corporation of Chennai, No.77, Kamarajar Salai, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092. ... Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 17.11.2021 made in W.P.No.24353 of 2021.

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Ms.Jessie Shapathika for M/s.R.Prabhakaran

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Ms.P.T.Ramadevi,

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

W.A.No.1 of 2022

Senior Counsel

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶21

The writ order dated 17.11.2021 in W.P.No.24353 of 2021 is

¶22

under challenge in the present intra-court appeal.

¶23

The writ petitioner, who is the appellant, filed the writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Executive Engineer, Street Vending Committee, Corporation of Chennai, for eviction of unauthorized occupants.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a transgender and residing at Virugambakkam, Chennai. They sell ice cream in a tricycle during the evening hours between 06.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. The authorities found that the ice cream parlour commissioned by the appellant is unauthorized and without license. Thus, a notice was issued, which came to be challenged in the writ proceedings.

¶25

Instead of submitting an explanation or submitting an appropriate

¶26

application seeking license, the appellant has chosen to challenge the notice,

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.A.No.1 of 2022

¶30

which is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that an explanation was given to the show-cause notice, but no order has been passed.

¶31

May that as it be. This court is of the considered view that the impugned notice issued is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. For commissioning an ice cream parlour in a public place, license is to be obtained from the competent authority, and more specifically, the subject location falls under the non-vending zone and therefore, this court do not find any infirmity in respect of the notice issued. The writ order also considered this aspect and granted liberty to the appellant to submit an application seeking liscence/ permission for vending of ice cream in any vending zone/ permitted area or for allotment of a shop in corporation commercial buildings. Contrarily, no person can be allowed to commission any illegal construction, parlours or bunk shops etc., which would cause inconvenience to road users and the public at large.

¶32

In the present case, the authorities found that the appellant has commissioned an ice cream parlour illegally without license. That being the

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.A.No.1 of 2022

¶36

factum, the writ court is right in granting liberty to the appellant to approach the authorities by submitting an appropriate application seeking liscence/ permission to sell ice creams in a vending zone or for allotment of a shop, as the case may be.

¶37

With these observations, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No

¶38

costs.

¶39

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 08.09.2025

¶40

skr Index : Yes Speaking order

¶41

¶42

The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶43

The Chairman cum Executive Engineer, Street Vending Committee, Corporation of Chennai, Revenue Department, Zone – 11, No.123, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087.

¶44