Disposed¶20

Amritsar Vikas Manch (Regd) v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2025CWP-PIL/103/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vending zone; Section 2(n), Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; City of Amritsar; Municipal Corporation, Amritsar; Public Interest Litigation; representation dated 23.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) undecided; competent authority respondent No. 1; speaking order within 60 days; petition disposed of; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice; Sumeet Goel, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 1 (competent authority) to consider the grievance contained in the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) and pass a speaking order within 60 days, communicating the same to the petitioner. ¶20

Amritsar Vikas Manch (Regd) Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(114)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-PIL-103-2025 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.05.2025

¶4

Amritsar Vikas Manch (Regd.)

¶5

...Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶10

Present:Mr. Sukhjinder Singh Behl, Advocate, Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. H.P.S. Bunger, Advocate, Mr. G.V.S. Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

¶13

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (ORAL)

¶14

The principal grievance of the petitioner in the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is that the City of Amritsar does not have any vending zone as defined in Section 2(n) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

¶15

Since the issue pertains to the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, which is the competent authority to take a call on the said issue and the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 23.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) which appears to have not been decided by the respondent-authorities, this Court refrains from entering into merits of the matter and leaves it open to the competent authority i.e. respondent No. 1 to consider the grievance contained

¶16

AMODH SHARMA 2025.05.22 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶17

CWP-PIL-103-2025 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

in the petitioner’s representation (Annexure P-3) and pass a speaking order within a period of 60 days from today and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶20

3. The petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶23

21.05.2025

¶24

Amodh Sharma

¶25