Allowed

Md.Raheem v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC10 Dec 2015WP/37018/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed writ petitions challenging the municipality's attempt to demolish structures used for vending. The court ruled that since no vending zones were identified, the municipality must issue identity cards to the petitioners and relocate them within the limits of the Street Vendors Act before any eviction.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to issue identity cards to petitioners as street vendors within one month and identify vending zones for relocation within three months before evicting petitioners.

Md.Raheem Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh Writ Petition Nos.34530 & 37018 of 2015

¶2

WP.No.34530/15

¶3

Between:

¶4

Keerti Rajesham and 9 others

¶5

… Petitioners and

¶6

The State of Telangana rep. by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Administration Dept., Hyderabad and another

¶7

…Respondents WP.No.37018/15

¶8

Between: MD.Raheem

¶9

… Petitioner and The State of Telangana rep. by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Administration Dept., Hyderabad and another

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

Date of Judgment Pronounced: 10-12-2015 Submitted for Approval:

¶12

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

¶14

Yes/No

¶15

may be allowed to see the judgments ?

¶16

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

¶17

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

¶18

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶19

+ Writ Petition Nos.34530 & 37018 of 2015 % Dated 10.12.2015

¶20

WP.No.34530/15

¶21

Between: # Keerti Rajesham and 9 others

¶22

… Petitioners

¶23

and

¶24

The State of Telangana rep. by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Administration Dept., Hyderabad and another

¶25

…Respondents WP.No.37018/15 Between: # MD.Raheem

¶26

… Petitioner

¶27

and

¶28

The State of Telangana rep. by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Administration Dept.,

¶29

Hyderabad and another

¶30

…Respondents

¶31

! Counsel for the petitioner(s): Mr.P.Lakshma Reddy ^ Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration (TS)

¶32

^ Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.N.Praveen Kumar

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases cited:

NIL

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶38

Writ Petition Nos.34530 & 37018 of 2015 Dated 10.12.2015

¶39

WP.No.34530/15

¶40

Between: Keerti Rajesham and 9 others … Petitioners and The State of Telangana rep. by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Administration Dept., Hyderabad and another

¶41

…Respondents WP.No.37018/15

Between:

MD.Raheem

… Petitioner

and

The State of Telangana rep. by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Administration Dept., Hyderabad and another

¶47

…Respondents

¶48

In both the WPs

¶49

Counsel for the petitioner(s): Mr.P.Lakshma Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration (TS) Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.N.Praveen Kumar

¶50

The Court made the following: Common Order :

¶51

Both these Writ Petitions are filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2- Municipality in seeking to dispossess the petitioners by demolishing the shops/temporary structures raised by them in Survey No.87 PP situated near water tank, Mancherial, Adilabad District, without following the due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶52

From the pleadings of both the parties, it is evident that the petitioners have occupied a road

¶53

margin in the aforesaid survey number, raised structures thereon and have been carrying on their respective businesses. There is, however, a dispute as to the nature of these structures. While it is the case of the petitioners that these are temporary structures, respondent No.2 has pleaded that they are permanent structures.

¶54

Be that as it may, in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2, it is stated that 698 street vendors were identified and given identity cards by the Town Vending Committee (for short ‘the Committee’). However, having admitted in Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioners have been using the road portion in Survey No.87 PP for carrying on their respective vending businesses, no reasons have been given as to why the Committee has not identified the petitioners as street vendors.

¶55

Under Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Act’), the Town Vending Committee is under obligation to conduct

¶56

a survey of all the existing street vendors, within the area under its jurisdiction, and shall ensure that the existing street vendors, identified in the survey, are accommodated in the vending zones subject to the norm of limiting the number of street vendors to two and half percent of the population of the ward or zone or town or the city, as the case may be, in accordance with the plan for street vending and the holding capacity of the vending zones. Under Sub-Section (3) thereof, no street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under SubSection (1) has been completed and the Certificate of Vending is issued to all the street vendors.

¶57

Under Section 18 of the Act, the local authority may, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, declare a zone or a part of it as no vending zone for any purpose and relocate the street vendors vending in that area, in such manner as may be specified in the Scheme.

¶58

Under Section 13 of the Act, every street

¶59

vendor, who possesses a Certificate of Vending, shall, in case of his relocation under Section 18 of the Act, be entitled for new site or area, as the case may be, for carrying out his vending activities as may be determined by the local authority in consultation with the Town Vending Committee.

¶60

In the instant case, respondent No.2 has alleged that the petitioners are doing businesses at non-vending zone and that they are not street vendors. While the counter-affidavit is silent as to whether vending zones are identified, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2Municipality has candidly admitted that, so far, no such zones have been identified. If that be so, the plea of respondent No.2 in the counteraffidavit that the petitioners are doing businesses at non-vending zone is without any basis, for, unless the vending zones are identified, no person can be accused of doing business in nonvending zone. As respondent No.2 has, admittedly, not identified the vending zones, as required under the provisions of the Act, it has no

¶61

right to evict any of the street vendors till the vending zones as well as the street vendors are identified. As the petitioners have, admittedly, occupied the road margin and been carrying on their respective vending businesses, I do not find any reason, whatsoever, for the Committee to not recognize them as street vendors. In the face of the admission made by respondent No.2 in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners are carrying on vending businesses al beit in the purported non-vending zones, respondent No.2 is directed to issue identity cards to them as street vendors within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent No.2 is also directed to identify the vending zones as per the provisions of the Act and relocate all the street vendors including the petitioners in those vending zones subject to the limit prescribed under Section 3 of the Act before evicting them from their respective places of businesses within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶62

Both the Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶63

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶64

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶65

Dt: 10^th December, 2015

¶66

Note: LR copies. (B/o) LUR

Md.Raheem v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Raheem v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Mr. T.V.K. Murthy S/o Sri. T.G.K. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana - Rep. by its Principal

Smt. Bolukonda Kalavathi, W/o.Late Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Kareem Khan Vs Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

M.Damodar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

T. Anil Kumar, Vs The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration

Bhagwandas.Karva, S/o. Kesarmal Karva Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its