S.Anand Vs The Commissioner of Chennai Corporation

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2025 with regard to issue license and identification card to the petitioner for running bunk shop adjacent to the Sun TV Office, M Ramasamy Chettiar Nagar, Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 600 028 as per the provision of the Street Vendors Protection of Livelihood Regulation Act, 2014 and till them not to disturb the petitioner in running the bunk shop in the above said place.

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Baskaran

¶16

For the Respondents : Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for R1

¶17

Mr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.6750 of 2026

¶21

for R2 ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

¶23

Prayer sought herein is for a writ of mandamus, to direct the

¶24

respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2025 with regard to issuance of license and identification card to the petitioner for running a petty-shop adjacent to the Sun TV Office, M Ramasamy Chettiar Nagar, Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 600 028, as per the provision of the Street Vendor (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and till then, not to disturb the petitioner in running the petty-shop in the aforesaid place.

¶25

The petitioner claims that, for the past eight years, he has been running a petty-shop adjacent to the Sun TV Office, M Ramasamy Chettiar Nagar, Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 600 028, and all of a sudden, according to him, the respondent Officials had come and directed him to remove the petty-shop immediately, as the said zone has been declared to be a non-vending zone.

¶26

The petitioner claims that, it is his only livelihood and therefore, he wants to continue in the said place and a representation to that effect has been made to the respondents on

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.6750 of 2026

¶30

23.12.2025 and in order to consider the said representation and to pass orders thereon, on merits, seeking a mandamus, the present writ petition has been moved, is contended by Mr.M.Baskaran , learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

We have heard Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu , learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.T.Seenivasan , learned Special Government Pleader for the second respondent.

¶32

The learned Standing Counsel would submit that, the place where he is already holding the petty-shop is a non-vending zone, as has been declared so and his plea cannot be considered, but, at the same time, if he is claiming that he has been continuously doing hawking business and he is a physically challenged person, an alternate place could be found out and accordingly, on merits, his representation dated 23.12.2025 would be decided by the respondent Corporation/Town Vending Committee of the respondent Corporation and an order to that effect would be passed within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court, he contended.

¶33

Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Court is inclined to pass the

¶34

Page 3 of 7

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.6750 of 2026

¶37

following orders:-

¶38

(i) That, there shall be a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.12.2025 and decide whether in the same place, as he claims, the petitioner could be permitted to continue with the petty-shop, which already he is holding, or an alternate arrangement could be made by providing any alternate site in a vending zone, altogether is to be decided by the respondent Corporation and accordingly, an order disposing the said representation could be passed

¶39

within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40