Disposed¶79

G. Venkateshwarlu, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Sept 2025WP/552/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vendors; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including Section 3(3); non-implementation; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Telangana; GHMC Town Vending Committee; Cyberabad police harassment, fine, eviction, confiscation; TSIIC; interim orders 06-01-2016 in WPMP No. 684 of 2016; petition disposed of with liberty to pursue other remedies reserved; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition was disposed of as unnecessary with the petitioners' liberty to institute appropriate proceedings or avail other remedies under law expressly reserved, and no order as to costs. ¶79

G. Venkateshwarlu, Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 acted arbitrarily and illegally in not implementing the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, warranting a mandamus directing implementation, and whether Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 harassed the petitioners by imposing fines, eviction and confiscation of goods contrary to the Act.

¶27

Court's answer

On the respondents' submissions and in view of the fact that the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 are being implemented (the petitioners having brought no specific instance of violation or non-compliance on record), the Court was of the considered opinion that continuation of the present writ petition is rendered unnecessary.

¶74

Ratio / Principle

It was made clear that the rights of the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings or to avail any other remedies available to them under law are expressly reserved, and subject thereto the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶79

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the writ petition (including the application of Respondent No. 8 to vacate the interim orders dated 06-01-2016) shall stand closed.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 552 of 2016 (decided 19-09-2025, High Court for the State of Telangana, Justice N. Tukaramji): Sixteen street vendors sought a mandamus directing the State to implement the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and restraining respondents (GHMC/Town Vending Committee, police authorities and TSIIC) from harassing them by fines, eviction or confiscation of goods. The Standing Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that the Act was being duly implemented and that no specific instance of violation had been shown; the Assistant Government Pleader for Home stated the police had not interfered with implementation. Holding continuation of the petition unnecessary, the Court disposed of the writ petition, expressly reserving the petitioners' right to institute appropriate proceedings or pursue other legal remedies, ordered no costs, and directed that pending miscellaneous petitions (including TSIIC's application to vacate the interim orders dated 06-01-2016) stand closed.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWEruW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 552 OF 2016

¶7

Between

¶8

G. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. G. Raghawlu Aged about 45^years, Occ StreetVending

¶9

S. Kalpana, Wo. S. Srinivas Aged about 3O^years, Occ Street.Vending

¶10

U. Bavargi, S/o V. Mango Rao Aged about 35^years, Occ Street^Vending_ 4. K. Veerabadram, S/o.^-K. Veera Swamy Aged about 37^years, Occ Street Vending

¶11

B. Ganlamma, Wo. B. Ravi Aged about 28^years, Occ Street^-Vending

¶12

T. Rajamma, S/o. Krishnaiah Aged about 31^yearc, Occ Street Vending 7. Nandlal Yadav, S/o. Bunda Mahto . Aged about 24^years, Occ Street Vending 8. Prakash Yadav, S/o. Bikham Yadcry Aged about 31^years, Occ StreetoVending

¶13

V. Appa Rao, S/o. Nuka Raju Aged about 48^years, Occ Street Vending 10.V. Venkanna, S/o. Pentaiah .Aged about 35^years, Occ Street vending

¶14

11.K. Veerababu, S/o. K. Mahalakshk Aged about 31^years, Occ Street Vending 12.A. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy Aged about 50^years, Occ Street Vending

¶15

13.P. Anjaneyulu, Slo. P. Yellaiah . Aged about 25^yearc, Occ Street Vending

¶16

14.P. Pavan, S/o. P. Srinivas Aged about 25^years,..Qcc Street Vending 15.Y. Krishnaiah, S/o. Y. Sd.ttaiah Aged about 26^years,.Occ Street Vending 16. N. Padma, Wo. Narsing Rao Aged about 50^years, Qcc $treet Vending

¶17

All are R/o. Clo. B.M.S. Officeo TRT-141^gth Street, Jawahar^Nagar, Hycleraladd -500020

¶18

..pETr*oNERS

¶19

AND

¶20

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretiariat^Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶21

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Departrnent^{of Home,..} Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶22

State of Telangana, Rep.By its Principal Secretary, Department of^Municipal Administration^-and Urban Development . Secretariat Buildings, ,Hyderabad

¶23

The Greater Hyderabad.Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner^and Chairperson Town Vending Committee, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶24

Commissioner of Police, Gyberabad, Hyderabad. 6. Additional Commissioner of Police (Trffic), Hyderabad and Member^Town Vending Police Control Room, Hyderabad

¶25

The Station House OffiCer, Madhapur Traffic Polite Station Madhapur, Cyberabad, Hyderabad

¶26

8 Telangana State lndustriallnfrastructure Corporatign Ltd, Basherbagh, Hyderabad Rep by its Managing Directand I The Station House Officer, Kukatpally Traffic Poli,oe Station Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS

¶27

' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the Respondent Nos.1 to o 3 in not implementing the provisions of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regutation of Street Vending) Act,2O14 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the procedure laid down under the said Act and atso contrary to the taw laid down by the Flon'ble Supreme Court and consequently^'direct the Respondent NOs 1 to 3 to implement the provisions of the said Act and further direct the Respondent Nos.4 to^g not to harass the Petitioners by imposing fine, eviction, confiscation of goods etc

¶28

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201I6(WPMP. NO: 684 OF 2016)

¶29

Petition uncler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Resporrdent Nos.4 to^g not to harass: the Petitioners herein by imposing fine, eviction, confiscation of goods etc., in violation of Section 3(3) of f'The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Streef Vending) Act, 2014", pending disposal of the Writ Petition

lA NO: 1 OF 2A18

Between:

:, .

Telangana. State lndustriallnfrastructure Corporation Ltd, Basherbagh, Hyderabad ttep by its Managing Directand

¶34

.. ... PETITIONER/RESPONDE NT No.8/RESPONDENT No.8

¶35

AND

¶36

1, G. Venkateshwarlu, s/o. G. Raghavulu Aged about 4s years, occ StreetVending

¶37

?.^{s. Kalpang,l{./g.s-..Srinivas Ag-ed about} Q0^years,^{occ street.vending} 1- !1.^{pSvargi,[i/o v.} lFng.g [qo^{Age_d about 35 yeais,occ street venoiig} 4. K. veerabaclram, S/o. K. veera Swamy ngdd abbut 37 years, occ-street Vending

¶38

B. Gangamnra, wo. B. RaviAged about 28 years, occ street -Vending

¶39

6.T.Raiamma,S/o.Krishnaiah-e.g:Aabou!31years'OccstreetVendinq7 . Nandtat^{yadav, s/o. Bunda rrrranto"-xg-t;6drt-ra ya;; d-sGet vendl[r9} g. prakash yadav, S/o. Bikham Va'ii"w- o^{Aged ab6ut 31 years, occ} StreetoVending

¶40

1. V. Appa^Rao, $/o. Nuk? $glu foed^a.bou! 19^{years'occ street Vendins} 10.V. Venkanna,^{S/o. PentaiahAgAabotfiqS ipqf' Occ Street-vending} ii,[,H#'H#ii:t$;[rer:'Wiitu:or??eooi3:ff^%rtll"n vending e/^ p vanaiah ars, occ^{streetVending} 'sL6l1-viing

¶41

i?:i:0,'.21[ti5:31"s'I;,JiJ'i3kff3ft ?f##,Iffi 1 5. Y. Krishnaiah,^{a/olv.' SA:ttdf"hAs"d iootirzo years"occ streetvendins} 16. N.^{padma, wl"I',ili.ding i{iJAg&-iooriEod"o, Qcc $treet Vendins}

¶42

17.State of^{Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, SecretiariatBuildings'}

24.?il3"38?$r'ti",133"3*."r,^{Kukatpany rraffic porice station Kukatpailv,} cyberabad' Hyderabad

¶50

...RESPoNDENTS/RESPoNDENTS

¶51

Petition under^{section151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} vacate the interim^{orders dated 06-01-2016made WPMP No 684 of 2016 in} W.P.No. 552^{of 2016}

¶52

CounselforthePetitionerc:SRI.MOGiLIANAVENI Counset for^{the neipondent No.l:GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION} counset for^{the CesponaentNos. 2to3,5toe: SRI .AHHffiXIX,EEDDY'}

¶53

counsel for the^{RespondentNo.4: GP FORMCPL ADMN'URBAN DEV} Counset for the^{Cespondent No.8i SRI M SRIKANTH REDDY(SC FOR TGIIC)} itre Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶54

THE HOI\IOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶55

ORDER.

¶56

This w:rit petition is^{filed seeking flor the following}

¶57

relief:

¶58

"...to issue an apPropriate^{Writ, Orderor direction} more particularly one^{inthe nature ofWrit of} Mandamus declaring^{the action of the Respondent} Nos.l to o 3 in^{not implementing the provisionsof} Th,e Street Vendors^{(?rotectionof Livelihood and} Rq;u[ation of Street^{Vending) Acg 2Ol4 as arbitrary,} illeC and in violation of^{the procedure laid down} unrler the said Act and^{also contr^ty to the law laid} do'wn by the Honble^{SupremeCourt and consequently} direct the Respondent NOs.l to 3 to^implementthe provisions of the said^{Act and furtherdirect the} Respondent Nos.4 to^{9 not to harassthe Petitioners by} imr:osing fine, eviction,^{confiscation of goods etc', and} pa$s, .^. ..".

¶59

I have heard Mr.Mogili^{Anaveni,learned counsel for} the petitioners and^{Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy,learned} Assistant G overnment^{Pleader for Home appearingfor} respondent Nos.L to 3,^{5 to g,leatned GovefnmentPleader} for Departrnent o[ Municipal^{Administration and Urban}

¶60

¶61

¶62

Development ?ppeurtng for respondent No.4^and Mr.M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Industrial, Infrastnrcture Coqporation Limited, appe rTrug for respondent No.8.

¶63

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent^No.4 submits that the provisions of the Street Vendors^(Protection of Liaelibood and Regulation of Street Vmding) Ac$ 2014 are being drly implemented in accordance with Iaw. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not brought on^record any specific instance of violation or non-compliance. Hence, in view of the statutory framewotk^being implemented, the grievance raised in the present writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶64

+. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for^Home,

¶65

supporting the above submission, contends that^the

¶66

=^{jgspondent-police have neither interfered with no-r created} .+r 'k

¶67

¶68

¶69

any impedirrrent in the^{implementationof the provisions of} the 201,4 Act. It is emphasized^{tha1t the role of the police, if} at alJ, required, is^{confi.ned to extending assistance for} enforcemenl: strictly in^{accordance with the ptocedure} established^1Uy law^{and in furth erarnrce of the obiectivesof} the said Act,

¶70

¶71

5 I have perused the materials^{on record.}

¶72

Having fegard to the^{praly$ made and the submissions}

¶73

advanced b:f the respondents,^{and in view of the fact that} the provisions of the^{Sneet Vendors (Protectionof Liuelihoodand}

¶74

Rcgulation of StreetVending)^{Act, 2014 are being implemented,} this Court ir; of the considered^{opinionthat continuationof} the present writ petition^{is renderedunnecessary.}

¶75

Howe',ref, it is made^{clear that the rights of the}

¶76

petitioners to institute apProPriate^{proceedings or to zvai),} Qny^{other remedies available tothem under law are}

¶77

¶78

expressly reserved- subjecr ro this riberry, the wnt petition

¶79

stands disposed of, There shall be no order as to costs.

¶80

Miscellaneous petitions, pending tf any, shall stand

¶81

closed.

¶82

^,,^...-..:, SD/. P.C. SULEKHA^DEVI ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

7 Traffic Polite Station^Madhapur, Cyberabad, HYderabad

¶90

f . iffi M;ilgini^{oirectorand Corporation Ltd.,Te.langam} 911!"-^.

¶91

g. tne Station House fficer,'Kukatpally Traffic Police Station^{Kul€tpalry'} ,0.8#S#'SHt"ilSSfuANAVENIAdvocale-toP-ucl,ii:iil ccjto cp FoR t,tuNlctpAL nomtttiSrfuqnoN AND T RBAN ' ''oEVif--oprrltENf ,Hig-d-b;rrt ior the State of Telanoana. at Hvderabad [OUTI 12.one CC to sRt.^{M. SRIKANIrnEooi} i5C^{ron^r-Glrc) toP[,c]}

¶92

i3:i,,,ro CCsto Ci^{FOC HOfUe, High CourtfortheStateof Telangana, at} ., o. Ti$"S3[t%tt'L"F G F N FB3L ADM I N I srRArt o N, H is h cou rt ror the state of Telangana, at^HYderabad [OUTI

¶93