G.Dinesh Kumar Vs the Commissioner

The Chairperson / Zonal Executive Engineer Zone V, (the Township Vending Committee) Corporation Of Chennai, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021. .. R2 in W.P.25124 of 2025 The Chairperson / Zonal Executive Engineer Zone VII, (the Township Vending Committee) Corporation Of Chennai, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021. .. R2 in W.P.25128 of 2025 The Chairperson / Zonal Executive Engineer Zone IX, (the Township Vending Committee) Corporation Of Chennai, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021. .. R2 in W.P.25134 of 2025

¶13

Page 1 of 8

¶14

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

¶15

W.P Nos. 25124, 25128, 25134 and 25137 of 2025

¶16

The Chairperson / Zonal Executive Engineer Zone VII, (the Township Vending Committee) Corporation Of Chennai, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021. .. R2 in W.P.25137 of 2025

¶17

Prayer in W.P.No.25124 of 2025 : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, their officials, subordinates from interfering with the running of the petitioners mobile bunk shop near Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, near to Pallavan Salai Bridge, Chennai 600 002, wherein selling tea, coffee, cool drinks, snacks and other food items, till the petitioners application dated 20.03.2025 made for grant of permission / certificate of vending is considered.

¶18

Prayer in W.P.No.25128 of 2025: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 07.04.2025 as per the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood Regulations) Act, 2014 made for granting permission / certificate of vending and till such time not to disturb with the running of the petitioners evening Tiffin center at 100 Feet Road, GNT Road, Chennai

¶19

Prayer in W.P.No/25134 of 2025 : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 07.04.2025 as per the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood Regulations) Act, 2014 made for granting permission / certificate of vending and till such time not to disturb with the running of the petitioners pushcart tiffin shop near Spencer Plaza, Mount Road, Chennai-600 002, wherein selling tea, coffee and food items by using LPG stove.

¶20

Prayer in W.P.No.25137 of 2025 : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 07.04.2025 as per the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood Regulations) Act, 2014 made for granting permission / certificate of vending and till such time not to disturb with the running of the petitioners evening mobile tiffin shop near THNB , Tirumangalam Road, Chennai, wherein selling tea, coffee and food items

¶21

Page 2 of 8

¶22

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

¶23

W.P Nos. 25124, 25128, 25134 and 25137 of 2025

¶24

In all W.Ps.

¶25

For Petitioners: Mr.E.Naveen For Respondent: Mr.E.C.Ramesh, Standing Counsel

¶26

Common Order

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by R.Suresh Kumar J.)

¶28

Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, though different writ petitioners have moved these writ petitions, all these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides.

¶29

In all these writ petitions, the prayer sought for is either to forbear the respondents concerned or other officials and staff from interfering with the running of the petitioners' mobile bunk shop in a particular locality or seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation given by each of the petitioners.

¶30

Heard Mr.E.Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that with regard to the bunk shops they have already been running in the locations which have been mentioned in each of the writ petitions, they seek protection under the provisions of

¶32

Page 3 of 8

¶33

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

¶34

W.P Nos. 25124, 25128, 25134 and 25137 of 2025

¶35

Street Vendors (Regulation and Protection of Livelihood) Act, 2014 (In short 'the Act') and in this context in W.P.No.25124 of 2025, they seek for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, their officials, subordinates from interfering with the peaceful running of the mobile bunk shop near Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital near to Pallavan Salai Bridge, Chennai 600 002.

¶36

In respect of the other writ petitions, a writ of Mandamus is sought for to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.04.2025 under the provisions of the Act for granting permission or certificate of vending and till such time the running of the bunk shop was not to be disturbed.

¶37

Though in all the four writ petitions, different locations have been stated by the respective writ petitioners claiming that they have been running temporary bunk shops in those localities, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would submit that none of the localities, where these petitioners claim to have been running bunk shops without any authority or permission, are vending zones. Instead, all these locations were non-vending zones and there can be no permission or certificate issued to these petitioners.

¶38

That apart, the learned Standing Counsel would also submit that since admittedly they claim that they have been running bunk shops on temporary basis, it

¶39

Page 4 of 8

¶40

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

¶41

W.P Nos. 25124, 25128, 25134 and 25137 of 2025

¶42

is the decision taken by the Town Vending Committee as well as the respondent Corporation that such kind of bunk shops would not be permitted to be installed or permitted to run. Therefore, on both counts the plea raised by the respective writ petitioners seeking for a writ of Mandamus as has been raised in these writ petitions cannot be considered under the provisions of the Act.

¶43

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having taken note of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, we do feel that, since admittedly the writ petitioners claim to have been running the bunk shop in a non-vending zone, no permission can be given and in that regard the mandamus sought for in each of the writ petitions either to consider their representation or to forbear the respondents from interfering with the running of the petitioner's bunk shop, can be granted.

¶44

Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions for granting any relief as has been sought for in each of the writ petitions. Resultantly, all these writ petitions fail and are liable to be dismissed. However, the dismissal of these writ petitions would not preclude the respective writ petitioner to find out any suitable place alternatively in the vending zones, where, if they decide to establish any street vending business, it is open to them to explore the possibilities by making a proper application in the prescribed form to the respondent Corporation under the

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

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

¶47

W.P Nos. 25124, 25128, 25134 and 25137 of 2025

¶48

provisions of the Act and in that case, it is for the Town Vending Committee and the Corporation shall take a call on the same.

¶49