Remanded

Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Sept 2025WPMS/2864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions seeking restoration of possession and protection against eviction. Directing the Town Vending Committee to identify a suitable vending zone for shopkeepers within four months, invoking the Street Vendors Act, 2014.

What did the court decide?

Direct to Town Vending Committee to identify a suitable vending zone for shopkeepers within four months per Street Vendors Act, 2014.

Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:7985

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPMS/2864/2024 with WPMS/1402/2023 WPMS/2343/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Mr. Parikshit Saini & Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioners.
			2. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
			3. Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, Advocate for respondent no. 4.
			4. Ms. Nishat Intezar, Advocate for respondent no. 5.
			5. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2864 of 2024 alone are being considered and discussed.
			6. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:- “I To issue a writ, order direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioner over his shop and further directing respondent nos. 2 to 6 not to evict/ dispossess the petitioner from his shop situated at Qabrastan Site No. 1, shop no. 9 which the petitioner is running for past more than 20 years by paying Teh Bazari and fees to respondent no. 4 and 6 respectively without following due process of law as the same is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner.”

¶3

2025:UHC:7985

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a meat seller, who is running his shop at Kabristaan Site No. 1, Shop No. 9, however, there was threat of dispossession, looming large over the petitioner, therefore, he filed this writ petition. He further submits that now, there is no imminent threat of dispossession. 8. Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Panchayat Piran Kaliyar submits that the land over which petitioner is running his business is a public utility land recorded as ‘gohar land’ in revenue records. He submits that since the land in question is public utility land, therefore, the District Magistrate can evict the persons occupying such land anytime. 9. Having regard to the facts of the case and also in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the Town Vending Committee to make endeavour to identify a suitable vending zone, where all these shopkeepers be shifted, within four months from today. Thereafter necessary steps shall be taken by the competent authority, as per provisions of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.09.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.09.09 19:18:26 +05'30'

Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kartik Papnai Vs Union of India

Sanjay Pant Vs Uttarakhand Sachivalay Prashasan Vibhag

Dinesh Chandra Phulera Vs State of Uttarakhand

G S Matiyani and Sons Vs State of Uttarakhand

Khushi Ram Vs Director Women Welfare