Writ petition by traders occupying municipal shops at Nakrekal, claiming to be street vendors and seeking to restrain the municipality from dispossessing them after their leases expired. The court held they were lessees of permanent structures, not street vendors under the 2014 Act, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
t-
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE.OF. TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat orisinat Jrri;;i;it;;T ^
MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT P E TITION NO:231 650 F 2021
Between:
Nalgonda District.
Nakrekal Town & Municipality, Nalgonda District.
Venkateswarlu (daughter-in-law), Occ : Vegetable vendor, R/o. H.No.5-74, Bodrai Bazar, Nakrekal Town & Municipality, Nalgonda District.
R/o. H.No.11-90, S[ivaji Nagar, Nakrekal Town & Municipality, Nalgonda District.
I
x1
{
I
b
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the HighCourt may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directionmore particularlyonein the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of therespondent authorities,particularlythe respondents No.3 and 4 in trying todispossessthe petitioners,withoutdue procedure as illegal, arbitrary, against theprinciples of naturaljustice and in contrary to the street vendors(protection oflivelihoodandregulationof street vendee) Act- 2014(Acl-7 ot 2014), GO.Ms.No."l 1(MA&UD)dated 05/01/2016of Telanganastate street vending scheme-2o16, GO.Ms.No.89(MA&UD)dated '10/06/2020 of Telangana State Street vendors(Protectionof livelihood and regulation of street vending)Rules- 2020, reported in 1997(11) SupremeCourt Cases-121 and Guntur Footpath and Thooppudu Vedi Bandlu, Chiruveparula sangham Case reported in 2021(2)ALD 554(AP). Consequently, todirect the respondentsNo. 3 and 4 not to dispossess the petiiioners from their businesspremises and conductdetailed enquiry in accordance with the legalprovisions byconsidering the petitionersrepresentationdated OBtOgl2O2l ,pending disposalof the writ petition.
IANO:1O F 2021
Petition under section 151CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 3'and 4not to dispossess the petitioners from theirbusiness premises and conduct detailed enquiryin accordancewith the legal provisionsby considering thepetitioners representationdated 08/09/2021 pending disposalof the writpetition.
Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. T VENKAT RAJU GOUD
counsel for the RespondentNos. 1 &2:GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Counsel fortheRespondent No.3: GP FORREVENUE
Counsel for the RespondentNo' 3: SRl. N. PRAVEENKUMAR' SC FOR MC
The Court made thefollowing:ORDER
l/ //
2
KI,J ll.P.No.23l65 of202l
a
HOI{'BLE SRI JUSTICEK. LAKSHMAN
VTRIT PETITI ON No.23165OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Venkat Raj Goud,leamed counsel for the Petitioners, Ieamed Government Pleader for MA &UD appearing on behalfof respondent Nos.l and 2,leamed Govemment Pleaderfor Revenue appearing on behalf of respondentNo.3 and Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, leamed Standing Counsel forrespondentNo'4
i) The Petitioners claim to be the shop keepers ofshops situated at KarodGiri Naka Complex, Main Center, Nakrekal Municipality, Nalgonda District. According to them, they and their family members
3
KL,J t4.P.No.2j165 of202l
are carryingout small street vending businesssince last 100 years by erecting smallshops and movingcarts'
ii) The businesspremises of the Petitionerswere burnt in the year 1990, due toa short circuit. Thereafter, in furtheranceof a Government plan, the Petitionerswere asked to deposit Rs'38000/- for construction of permanent shops'After the construction, vide Proc' No' Bl/3736/93/pts dated 25.06.1998,the said shops were allotted on lease to the Petitioners for a periodof i 0 years i.e., up to 31'03'2008
iiD In theyear 2008, the lease period expired' but based on requestsfrom the lessees a resolution was passed by GramPanchayath' Nakekal on30.06.2008 extendingthe lease for 10 years with an enhancementof 30o/oin the rent' However' eviction order was issued on 23.01.2010 tothe peopleincluding some of the Petitionersherein for non-paymentof rent.Subsequently,a public auction notice was also published on08.02'2010'
iv) Thesaid eviction order and auction notice were challenged before thiscourt in W'P' No' 3086 of 2010' The writ petitionwas disposedof vide order dated 16'03'2017 directing the authorities to permit the continuationof lesseeswhohave paid the rent till 31'12'2017' Auction oflease hold was allowed and the Petitioners thereinwere allowedto participatein the auction' provided they compliedwith all the conditions.It is relevant to note that some of the Petitioners in the present casewere also the Petitioners in W'P' No' 3086 of 2010'
4
KL,J 11.P.No.23165 of202l
I/
v) Therefbre, as the second leaseperiod expired on 31.03'2018, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4were trying to dispossessthe Petitioners. In this regard, representation dated 08.09.2021 was submitted to Respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry and allot theshops tothe Petitioners.
vi) The Petitioners claiming right over the shops have been vacated from their respective shops by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 09.09.2021 . ,\ resolution was passed on 18.09.2021 by Nakrekal Municipal Council to auction 38 shops.
vii) Hence, the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition claiming prote(:tion under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter 'the Act, 2014').
i) Petiti,xers signed the lease agreements in the year 1998 without knowing its contents. It was only in 2008 when the lease deed expired that the Petitioners came to know about the contents of the lease deed.
ii) Several representations were made to the authorities to allot the shops on permanent basis to the Petitioners at a normal cost.
I)-.f1,"Petitionersare street vendors.The Supreme Courtin Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation,
-=_-
!i.*......!.__
5
KL.J W.P.No.23165 of202 t
Greater Mumbail and the Andhra pradesh High Court in Guntur Footpath &Thopudu Veedhiballu Chiruvyaparula Sangham, Guntur v. state of Andhra Pradesh2 have held that street vendors shall be allowed to carry on business and cannot be evicted till the hawking/vending zones are created. Under the Act,2014 street vendors have a right to carry on business, until and unless a particular area has been declared a 'no vending zone'.
iv) The action of the authorities should be in accordance with the procedure established by law which should be just, fair and reasonable. Reliance was placed on Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan3 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporationa.
v) The action of the respondents in interfering and trying to dispossess the Petitioners without considering the representation dated 08.09.2021 is illegal and is contrary to the Ac! 2014, Rules 2020,, and Apex Court judgments.
i) Petitioners do not fa11 within the definition of 'street vendor' under the Act, 2014, G.O. Ms. No. I i(MA & t D) dated05 .01.20 16 of Telangana Street Vending Scheme, 2016 and G.O.Ms. No. 89 (MA &
I . (2014) l scc 490
- 202t(2) ALD 5s4(AP)
- (1997) 1l SCC r21
- 1986 AIR 180
6
KL,J tl.P.No.2j165ol2021
/
10.06.2020of Telangana StreetVendors (Protection of trD) dated I-ivelihood andRegulation of StreetVending) Rules' 2020'
ii) ThePetitioners are only iesseesand cannotclaim protection undertheAct,2014.
iiD Mostof the Petitioners have sub-leasedthe shopsto third parties and arecollecting huge rents' Only 9 actuallease holders in shop nos. 1, 3,4, 5, 7, 8,10,12 and13 are doing business' the remainingshops are sub-leased.
iv) The shopsclaimedby Petitioners were aheady vacatedon Og.Og.2O2l.On 18.09.2021a resolution waspassedto auctionthe shops'
v) With theabove said submissions, respondent Nos'3and 4 sought to dismissthe writ petition.
i) The Petitionersclaim to be 'streetvendors' and according to them they cannot bedispossessedunless a surveyis conducted and vending zones are createdunder the Section3 of the 2014, Act' On the other hand, Respondent Nos. 3and 4 contendthat Petitioners were only lessees and their lease deedshave expired. They cannot claim nowthat they are street vendors.
ii) Therefore, thequestion beforethe court is whether the Petitioners fali within the definition of 'streetvendors' under the Act, 2014, Telangana Street Vending Scheme, 2016 andTelanganaStreet Vendors Ru1es, 2020.
7
KL,J W.P.No.23l65 of 2021
iii) Before deciding the issue involved, it is apt to mention the
object ofthe 2014, Act, which is as under:
"Street vendors constitute an important segment of the urban population. Street vendors are those who are unable to get regular jobs in the remunerative formal sector on account of their low level of education and skills. They earn their livelihood through their own meagre financial resources and sweat equity.
Street vending provides a source of self-errployment, and thus acts as a measure of urban poverty alleviation without major Govemment intervention. Street vending also acts as an instrument to provide affordable as well as convenient services to a maj ority of urban population and has a prominent place in the urban supply chain and are an integral part of the economic growthprocess within urban areas.
Given the pace of urbanisation and the opportunitiespresented through the development of urban areas, thegrowth of street vendors is likely to have an upward trend. It is vital that these vendorsare enabled to pusue their livelihoods in a congenial and harassment free atmosphere.
Considering the significant contribution made by streetvendors to the urban society as a whole, more specifically tothe comparatively poorer sections, and to enable them toeam a livelihood through creation ofgood workingconditions, without causing obstruction to thepublic, the Governmentof Indiabrought out revised National Policy on Urban Street Vendors,2009which aims at securing right of the citizens tohave adequaterteans of livelihood as enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 38(2),39(a), 39(b) and 41 of the Constitution and fosteringa congenialenvironmentfor the urban street vendors to carry outtheir activities,without harassment from anyquarter. It alsoaims at providinga mechanism for regulation of street vending activities toavoid congestionon sidewalks and to ensure free flow oftrafficon roads by a legislative framework to enable street vendorsto pursuea honest living without harassment.
Thus, a proposed Bill is aimed atprotecting the livelihood rights and social security of streetvendors and regulation of urbanstreet vending in the country andensuring uniformityin the legal framework for sheet vendingacross States and Union territories.The proposed Street Vendors (Protection of LivelihoodandRegulationof
Y
8
KL,J IY.P.No.2jl65af202l
C
Street Vending) Bill,2012, inter alia, seeksto provide for the following, namelY:-
Finally, the Street Vendors(Protectionof Livelihoodand Regulationof
Street Vending) Act, 2014, was enactedand it came into force w.e.f. effect 05.03.20 t4.
9
KL,J W.P.No.23l65 of2021
iv) The BombayHigh Court in Azad Hawkers Unionv' Union of tndias hasaptlyreferredto the object and schemeofthe Act' 2014as
follows-
"50.As has beetlrightly arguedon behalfofthe Petitioners thatthe said Act has been enacted with an object toenablethe street vendors to earn a livelihoodthrough creation of good working conditionsas enshrinedin Articles 14' 1e(1)(g), 38(2),3e(a),39(b) and 41 of the Constitutionand fostering acongenial environmentfor the urban street vendorsto carry out theiractivitieswithoutharassment from anyquarter.At the sametime, the Act also recognizesright of stl'eet vendors' without causing obstructionto the public' It alsoaimsat providing a mechanismfor regulationof street vending activitiesto avoidcongestionon sidewalksand to ensurefree flow of traffic on roads by alegislative framework' to enable street vendorsto pursue a honest livingwithout harassment."
v) Therefore,the Act was brought in' to protectthe street vendors andgive them an opportunityto earn their own livelihood' The Act,2014 aims to protect streetvendors who do their business on streets byvendingsmall goods' These vendorsare solely dependenton such business and are to be allottedspacefor conduct of such business'
5.2017(6)BomcR481
10
C
KL,J llt.P.No.23I65 of 202I
vi) To decide the issue at hand, it is essential to discuss the definition of a street vendor.
vii) Section - 2 (l) defines the term,street vendor,, which is as follows-
" "street vendor" means a person engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares, food items or merchandise of everyday use or offering services to the general public, in a street, lane, sidewalk, footpath, pavement, public park or any other public place or private area, from a temporary built up structure or by moving from place to place and includes hawker, peddler, squatter and all other synonymous terns which may be local or region specific; and the words ..street vending" with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly;,,
viii) The definition of the term,street vendor, is very wide as it includes vending goods or offering services of everyday use. It includes hawker, peddler, squatter and all other synonymous terms. However, the essential requirement of being a street vendor is to carry on business from a temporary built-up structure or by moving from place to place.
ix) Now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioners are lessees and they cannot claim to be street vendors. The lease deed of petitioner No' 22 filed with the writ petition clearly mentions that the petitioner is a lessee, lease period is l0 years and has to vacate the leased shop after 10 years' Further, the order of the Collector issued vide Roc. No. 771l0gB3(Pts.) dated 18.12.200g, which extended the lease period from
11
KL'J lV.P.No.23l65 of202l
31.03.2008 to 31.03.2018, also mentions that the shopswereleasedout and were to be vacated after the expiry of10 years.
x) It is relevant to note that some of tirepetitioners herein filed W.P. No.3086 of 2010 challenging theproceedings dated 09.12.2009, eviction order dated 23.0L2010,publicauction noticedated 05.02.2010 published on 08.02.2010. In the saidwrit petition, the petitioners claimed that they are lessees relyingupon the resolution ofthe then Gram Panchayath, Nakrekal (presently NakrekalMunicipality) dated 30.06.2008 where-under itwas resolvedto extendthe lease of the shops in favour of the petitioners for afurther period of l0 years with enhancement of rent by300/oon the existing rent.
xi) It was also referredin the orderdated 16.03'2017 passedin W.P. No.3086 of 2010,with regardto the details of rent being paidby the petitioners duringthe pendencyof the writ petitionand that they are entitled for renewal foranother 10 years in view of the resolutionpassed by the Gram Panchayath.Thesaid writ petitionwas disposed of withthe following directions:
"(a)The petitioners, who have compliedwiththe condition of paying the difference ofrent, are allowedto continue to remain as lessees ofthe lst respondent till 31-12-2017 and continue topay theenhancedrent.
(b) The petitioners, who havecompliedwith the condition dated 07-03-2017and are interested in availing the time granted by this order,are directedto file an affidavit before the lst respondent-GramPanchayatby enclosinga copy of this order, within twoweeks fromtodaY'
l2
KL,J ll/. P No.23165 ol202l
(c) The lst respondent is directed to conduct auction of leasehold rights of shops in terms of Sub-Rule 10 of Rule 6 of G.O.Ms.No.496, Panchayat Raj, dated I l-06-1966.
(d) The petitioners, who complied with all the conditions, can be permitted to participate in the auction held by the I st respondent and if petitioners are successful bidders, the lst respondcnt allows such successful bidders to continue to do business in the same premises.
(e) Either the condition of paying the rent is not complied with or the alfidavit as directed by this Court is not filed, to the extent of such petitioners, the interim order shall stand vacated.
(f) The u,rit petition is filed by 3l petitioners. petitioner Nos. I to I 5, 1 8. 19, 22 to 27 and 3l (24 persons) have complied with the condition and petitioner Nos. 16, 17, ZO, 21, 2g, 29 and 30 (7 persons) have not complied with the condition. Therefore, the interim order granted in favour of petitioner Nos.l6, 17, 20,21, 28,29 and,30 is vacated and the lst responclent is given liberty to vacate and take possession from petitioner Nos. 1 6, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29.and 30 j,
xii) Now, the Petitioners cannot contend that they did not know the contents of the lease agreement and that they are street vendors. They never raised any objections before this Court in W.p. No. 30g6 of 2010. Instead of raising objections, a request was made to extend the lease period for 10 years.
xiii) Therefore, the petitioners were lessees whose lease got expired in 2018' The reliefunder the Act, 2014 is an afterthought ofthe Petitioners to continue the lease.
\
13
KL,J W.P.No.23l65 of 2021
7. CONCLUSION:
i) The definition of 'street vendors' clearly rnentions that they
have to carry on business from a ternporary built-up structure. In the present case, the Petitioners themselves have admitted to carryout business from the pennanent structure i.e., the leased shops. The Petitioners, who pay the lent regularly and rvho have invested an amount Rs.38,000i- cannot suddenly claim to be street vendors. Therefore, the Petitioners were merely shopkeepers under the lease agreement and not street vendors under the Act,2014. They cannot take shelter under the provisions of the Act. This writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.
ii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is dismissed.
iii) However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall beno order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending in the writ
petition shall stand closed.
SD/- K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' 4// SECTION OFFICER
One Fair copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. LAKSHMAN (for His Lordships Kind Perusal)
To,
\
4..One CC to Sri. T Venkat Raju Goud, Advocate [OPUC]
P[/ *\ ,p
HIGH COURT
DATED:1811012021
ORDER
sI Ar€
1
(
q
o
i
od 2 s 0$20?1
:
t
* o P
WP.No.23165 of 2021
Dismissing the WP Without costs.
I
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, as lessees of permanent municipal shops, fall within the definition of 'street vendor' under Section 2(1) of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 and can claim its protection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation, Greater MumbaiReferred¶89
(2014) 1 SCC 490 · Who else cites this
Guntur Footpath & Thopudu Veedhiballu Chiruvyaparula Sangham, Guntur v. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶94
2021 (2) ALD 554 (AP)
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab KhanReferred¶95
(1997) 11 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal CorporationReferred¶95
1986 AIR 180 · Who else cites this
Azad Hawkers Union v. Union of IndiaReferred¶142
2017 (6) Bom CR 481 · Who else cites this
W.P. No. 3086 of 2010Referred¶158
7 provisions across 5 enactments
Gaddam Rajamma (LR of Gaddam Ratnaiah)
The State of Telangana
The Director of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad
The District Collector, Nalgonda
The Nakrekal Municipality, Nalgonda District
K.Lakshman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
