Shiv Prasad Gupta v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr

1. Writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge vide a common order dated August 11, 2015.

2. The eight appellants, who had filed eight separate writ petitions claimed that orders passed by the then Zonal Vending Committee and the Appellate Authority had recognized that they were vending wares from footpaths/pavements. Put in a tabular form, the place of vending and the page at which the order passed by the Zonal Vending Committee and the ) Appellate Authority, would be as under:- Item No. Appellant's Name Vending place ZVC/Appellate Authority status quo order(s) Page Nos.

3. We note that the orders passed by the Zonal Vending Committee are in the year 2010 and by the Appellate Authority in the year 2011. The date and the month varies.

4. Case of the appellants was that with the promulgation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the mandate of sub-Section 3 of Section 3 prohibited their eviction till they were re-located after a survey was carried out as contemplated by sub- Section 1 of Section 3.

5. The learned Single Judge has noted that as per the Act Town Vending Committees had to be constituted, which has not been done. The learned Single Judge has held that questions of fact concerning free movements on the street could not be decided by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In our opinion the issues which arose for consideration in the writ petitions have not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge.

7. Since counsel as above appear for the respondents on advance copy of the appeals being served, we have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 recognized that street vendors are an important segment -J of the urban population and street vending provides a source of selfemployment and thus acts as a measure of urban poverty alleviation. As per Section 3(1) of the Act Town Vending Committees had to be constituted to conduct a survey of streets. As per sub-Section 2 it was the duty of the Town Vending Committees to identify all existing street vendors and accommodate them in vending zones. As per sub-Section 3 no street vendor can be evicted or re-located till the survey specified under sub-Section 1 is completed. As per Section 18 the local authorities have to declare vending / zones on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committees. A redressal mechanism has to be constituted as per Section 20 by constituting a Committee to decide grievances if any raised by Street Vendors.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents concedes that Town Vending Committees had not been constituted and the reason for which is that the applicable bye-laws have yet to be framed.

10. Now, if the respondents are not performing their statutory duties by constituting Town Vending Committees, the appellants cannot be faulted. We find that in the impugned decision there is no discussion with respect to the orders annexed by the appellants passed by the erstwhile Zonal Vending Committees and the Appellate Authority. We note that under directions issued by the Supreme Court the Zonal Vending Committees were constituted as also an Appellate Authority. The mandate of these authorities was to look into the documents produced by Street Vendors and pass appropriate orders. All appellants have favourable orders in their favour from the erstwhile Zonal Vending Committees as also the Appellate Authority. Since the issue of Street vending could not be resolved through administrative action taken pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme I Court the Government promulgated the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, with the mandate as aforenoted.

11. The appellants have prima-facie established they are squatting at the respective sites for decades together. They would be entitled to the benefit of sub-Section 3 of Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. Of course, the appellants cannot squat on a footpath or a pavement in a manner where movement of pedestrians or traffic on the street is obstructed. If they do so, then alone they can be prohibited from squatting at the site where they squat currently. This would have required a counter-affidavit to have been filed. The writ petitions could not be dismissed in limine.

12. We dispose of the appeals setting aside the impugned order dated August 11, 2015. The writ petitions filed by the appellants are restored. We direct status quo to be maintained till the learned Single Judge re-decides the writ petitions. The respondents shall file counter-affidavits in the writ petitions within a period of six weeks from today. The writ petitions would be listed before the roster Bench for directions on January 08, 2016.

13. No costs. CM No.26291/2015 in LPA No.796/2015 CM No.26295/20 15 in LPA No.797/2015 CM No.26392/20 15 in LPA No.798/2015 CM No.26395/20 15 in LPA No.799/2015 CM No.26398/20 15 in LPA No.800/2015 CM No.26408/20 15 in LPA No.802/2015 CM No.26415/2015 in LPA No.803/2015 CM No.26418/2015 in LPA No.804/2015 Dismissed as infructuous. -1- PRADEEP NARA1JOG, J• MUKTA GUPTA, J. NOVEMBER 06, 2015 mamta LPA No.796/2015 & conmmatters 5-