Street Vendor Law and the Judiciary
The Street Vendors’ Act 2014 was enacted the law on 4.3.2014 and came into force on 1.5.2014, as The Street Vendors (Protection Of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. It has overriding effect on all other laws as per Section 33 of the said Act. The Act under Clause 3 (e) of the First Schedule prohibits declaration of any area as no-vending zones or vending zones or restricted vending zones until survey as provided under the Act has been carried out and the Plan for street vending has not been formulated. This read with Section 3 of the Act mandates that no existing hawker/vendor shall be evicted or relocated until the survey as envisaged under the Act is completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors. It is clear that the language of the Act is categorical that all existing street vendors are to be provided the benefit and protection of the Act.
Therefore, any claim and the averment by the authorities that there is a ‘no hawking zone’ existing prior to the enactment of the Act is false and baseless. Further, the claim that vendors are “illegal” seeking their removal, is wholly false and cannot be entertained or sustained in law.Indeed, it has been held by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court that any vendor who has been removed in contravention of the Act, must be restored.
SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN PRINCIPLES RE: OLD SCHEMES VIS A VIS NEW LAWS – 3 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
- In Sudhir Madan & Ors Vs MCD & Ors (2009) 17 SCC 332the Supreme Court held inter alia that: “…It goes without saying that we have approved the schemes as framed by the MCD and NDMC. If the legislature intervenes and frames another scheme or regulations governing such schemes, that will certainly supersede the schemes prepared by the MCD and NDMC. It is well settled that any administrative action is always subject to law that may be framed by the competent legislature…” (Para 30 of the judgement)
- In Gainda Ram v. MCD (2010) 10 SCC 715the Supreme Court held inter alia that, “…67. In the background of the provisions in the Bill and the 2009 Policy, it is clear that an attempt is made to regulate the fundamental right of street hawking and street vending by law, since it has been declared by this Court that the right to hawk on the streets or right to carry on street vending is part of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). However, till the law is made the attempt made by NDMC and MCD to regulate this right by framing schemes which are not statutory in nature is not exactly within the contemplation of constitutional provisions discussed above. However, such schemes have been regulated from time to time by this Court for several years as pointed above. Even, orders passed by this Court, in trying to regulate such hawking and street vending, is not law either. At the same time, there is no denying that fact that hawking and street vending should be regulated by law. Such a law is eminently necessary in public interest…” The court further directed the appropriate government to legislate and bring out the law to regulate hawking and the fundamental rights of hawkers by 30.6.2011(Para 20). Yet the authorities failed to comply and legislate.
- In its Judgment dtd 9.9.2013, in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai &Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 490,felt it was apposite for it to step in and direct that the 2009 Policy be implemented throughout the country. In Paras 4 & 5, the Supreme Court expressly alluded to the “raw treatment” received by street vendors from the state apparatus and their regularly being targeted for “extra income” and treatment with extreme contempt by the local authorities, the police, etc. and that the situation had not changed in the last 4 decades.The Supreme Court also expressly acknowledged that the new law would protect the livelihood of millions against constant harassment and victimization which has been the order of the day. (Para 20). Given that the appropriate law had not been enacted despite specific directions in this regard the Supreme Court, directed the 2009 policy to be implemented throughout the country and for facilitating its implementation issued directions being inter aliaconstitution of town vending committee at city/town level in accordance with 2009 policy[Para 21.1], that all street vendors/hawkers shall be registered in accordance with Para 4.5.4 of the 2009 policy[Para 21.7],that the process of registration must be completed within 4 months of receipt of directions by chief secretaries of states and administrators of union territories [Para 21.8],If there remains any conflict between the 2009 Policy and the municipal laws, insofar as they relate to street vendors/hawkers, then the 2009 Policy shall prevail[Paras 21.12],All existing street vendors/hawkers operating across the country shall be allowed to operate till the exercise of registration and creation of vending/hawking zones in terms of 2009 policy [Para 21.15], that the aforesaid directions shall remain operative till an appropriate legislation is enacted by Parliament or any other competent legislature and is brought into force [Para 21.17].
CASE LAWS AFTER THE STREET VENDORS’ ACT 2014 – SOME JUDGMENTS & ORDERS BY THE HIGH COURTS
- Thereafter the legislature enacted the law on 4.3.2014 which came into force on 1.5.2014, as The Street Vendors(Protection Of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 having overriding effect on all other laws as per Section 33 of the said Act. The Act under Clause 3 (e) of the First Schedule prohibits declaration of any area as no-vending zones or vending zones or restricted vending zones until survey as provided under the Act has been carried out and the Plan for street vending has not been formulated. This read with Section 3 of the Act mandates that no existing hawker/vendor shall be evicted or relocated until the survey as envisaged under the Act is completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors. Thus, the language of the Act is categorical that all existing street vendors are to be provided the benefit and protection of the Act.
- P.(C) 4303/2014 NASVI Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation And Ors, the division bench of the Delhi High Court held that:“…insofar as street vending is concerned, the subject matter is entirely covered by the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The rights and obligations of street vendors, requirements of cleanliness and public hygiene as well as the formation of the Town Vending Committees have been specified in the said Street Vendors Act, 2014. Chapter 8 of the said Act also provides for the prevention of harassment of street vendors. Section 3 of the said Act provides for the conduct of a survey and Section 3 (3) thereof stipulates that no street vendor shall be evicted till the survey has been completed. It is an admitted position that the survey has not yet been completed. Therefore, the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 shall be applicable and no street vendor can be evicted. Section 33 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 also gives it overriding effect over other laws.” (Paras 2 & 3)
- NP.(C) 8661/2014 NASVI Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation And Ors, the division bench of the Delhi High Court referring to judgment held that,“…We have also directed on the previous occasion that if any street vendors have been evicted from the areas referred to therein, they shall be permitted to return. Despite this, some street vendors have been evicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown us some documents which indicate that the articles of sale of the street vendors have been confiscated and, thus, the street vendors have made applications for return/release of the same even in December, 2014 after the passing of our previous order. An affidavit shall be filed along with the documents. The directions given by us on the previous occasion is reiterated. Any non-compliance will be looked at very seriously…”
- LPA 136/2016, NEW DELHI, DELHI HIGH COURT. BHOLA RAM PATEL VS. NDMC & ANR. REGARDING EVICTION FROM BANGLA SAHIB. JUDGEMENT- THE TVC TO CONDUCT A SURVEY WITHIN 2 MONTHS AFTER APPROPRIATELY NOTIFYING VENDORS OF THE SURVEY. IT CAN EVICT VENDORS WHO ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES ON THE BASIS OF THE ‘LAST COME FIRST GO’ PRINCIPLE. NDMC was given discretionary powers to decide eviction wrt the Act, Scheme and Rules.
- WP 6622/2015, NEW DELHI, DELHI HIGH COURT. JANODAYA EKTA SAMITI VS. GNCTD REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT. JUDGEMENT- ENFORCEMENT OF THE SCHEME HAS BEEN STAYED AS IT OPPOSES THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 38 OF THE ACT.
- WP 8042/2016, The order was passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court and clarifies that its previous order dtd 9.9.2016 directing that street vendors shall not be evicted without following due process of law until 28.9.2016, shall not be made applicable to the areas identified as non squatting zones under the scheme existing prior to the enforcement of the Act of 2014.
- Bihar state footpath dukandar association v state of Bihar: direction to make rules, schemes, bye-laws.
- Gokul Prasad Gupta v state of Maharashtra
Protection to be provided to a street vendor only if he has supporting documents stating that he hawked in the same area prior to 01/05/2014.
Eviction of others to be carried out by due process of law.
Constitution of tvc, framing of scheme and rules to be done.
- Honaji Hemraj Chavan v state of Maharashtra
Only those street vendors who are entitled to be protected under the provisions of the act shall be protected by the Municipal Corporation
- Masood maiden & ors v state of Tamil Nadu & ors
The state government is directed to frame the rules and bye-laws, thereafter at the earliest extend sufficient protection subject to regulation to the vendors.
eviction is prohibited till completion of survey.petitioners not to increase their shop sizes till survey is completed.
- Traffic ramaswamy v state of tamil nadu
The state is required to take necessary action to ensure that no-hawking zones are cleared of all encroachments and maintained as a no-hawking zone.
- T nagar residents welfare association v state of tamil nadu
relocation of vendors to other areas or streets in order to facilitate free-flow of traffic.
- SECOND APPEAL 1126/2014, TAMIL NADU, MADRAS HIGH COURT. MUGUNDAN VS. ANNA MGR MEMORIAL BEACH SMALL REGARDING EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS. JUDGEMENT- STREET VENDING CANNOT TAKE PLACE ON THE SANDS OF BEACHES. NO PVT PARTY SHALL BE ALLOWED TO TAKE CONTROL OF OR COLLECT ANY MONEY FROM VENDORS ALLOWING THEM TO CARRY ON TEHIR BUSINESS ON BEACHES. Rajubhai prabhakarrao nadurkar v vododra municipal corporation
Prohibition from eviction till land is allocated to the vendors. the said rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
- WP 16455/2015, KERALA, KERALA HIGH COURT. T P CHERIAN PHILIP VS. NHAI REGARDING EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS. JUDGEMENT- THE 2014 ACT DOES NOT HAVE AN OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER THE LAWS RELATING TO HIGHWAYS. STREET VENDORS OPERATING ON THE HIGHWAYS DO NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE DEFINITION OF STREET VENDOR PROVIDED IN THE ACT.
- WP 17763/2016, RAJASTHAN, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. RAVINDRA SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. REGARDING HARRASMENT AND EVICTION. JUDGEMENT- THE STATUS QUO IS GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND THEY MAY CONTINUE TO CARRY ON THEIR TRADE FROM THE EXISTING VENDS.
THE PROCEDURE AS PER THE STREET VENDORS’ ACT
- The Act provides a procedure mandated to be followed to regulate street vending activities. Firstly, the‘ TVC (Town Vending Committee)’must be constituted by the Appropriate Government as per Section 2(m) r/w Section 22 in accordance with the Rules.
- It is thereafter that a ‘Scheme’ has to be prepared by the Appropriate Government as per Section 2(j) read with Section 38 after due consultations with the local authority and the TVC. The matters to be provided in the ‘Scheme’ are provided in the Second Schedule of the Act which inter alia, provides for the manner of conducting the Survey.
- S 3 provides that the ‘Survey’ of “all existing street vendors” shall be conducted by the ‘TVC’ as per the ‘Scheme’. All existing street vendors identified in such survey shall be accommodated in the vending zones subject to the provisions of the Act.
- S 21 provides that it is after the ‘Survey’ as per the ‘Scheme’ that the ‘Local Authority’ shall prepare a Plan in consultation with the planning authority and on the recommendation of TVC. The First Schedule of the Act, expressly provides that It is the ‘Plan for Street Vending’ that shall determine vending zones, earmark spaces for vending zones, spatial norms, right of way, etc. Such Plan shall be prepared every 5 years by the local authority in consultation with the planning authority, on the recommendations of the TVC. The Plan is required to promote the vocation of street vending.
- After completion of Survey and formulation of the Plan, the COV (Certificate of vending) must be issued as per S 4 to every street vendor identified in the Survey.
- S 3(3) provides that no street vendor shall be evicted or relocated till the ‘Survey’ has been completed and the COV (Certificate of Vending) has been issued to all street vendors.
- Only if a vendor commits breach of any conditions specified in COV or if such vendor is found vending in a non-vending zone declared as per the provisions of the Act or if the COV has been secured by misrepresentation or fraud, only then, can he/she may be evicted or relocated that too, subject to a 30 days’ notice (S 10 r/w S 12 and S 18 of the Act).
- It is pertinent that S 27 expressly protects street vendors from harassment by police and other authorities and does not allow prevention of exercise of his/her rights by any authority exercising powers under any other law.
THE NUMBER OF TVCS, SCHEME & PLAN
- As per S 22(1) – Proviso, the Appropriate Government may constitute more than 1 TVC for each zone/ward, in each Local Authority.
For example ,the Delhi Govt initially stated that it would constitute 70 TVCs, and now states that it will constitute 68 TVCs in Delhi.
- As per S 38(1) of the Act, the Appropriate Government shall frame a Scheme as per the Second Schedule, after due consultation with the Local Authority and the TVC.
- As per S21(1) – Every Local Authority shall prepare a Plan as per the First Schedule. The Plan is meant to promote street vending.
In Delhi, for the 5 local authorities, South DMC, North DMC, East DMC, NDMC, Delhi Cantt.
- The declaration of “no-vending zones” etc. is to be an AFTERMATH of the Survey conducted by the TVC as per the Scheme and after taking into consideration the ground realities identified in the Survey.
- In order to declare any place as a vending, restricted vending or no vending zone, 3(a) of the First Schedule says that “any existing market” or “natural market” as identified under the survey shall not be declared as a no-vending zone”. 3(b) declaration must be such that minimum vendors are displaced. 3(c), (d), overcrowding, sanitary conditions shall not be the basis for declaring any area as no-vending zone unless the latter can be solely attributed to street vendors and cannot be resolved through appropriate civic action through local authorities. 3(e) of the First schedule provides that no zone shall be declared as a no-vending zone till the Survey has been carried out and the Plan has been formulated. The Second Schedule disallows re-location of street vendors from natural markets where street vendors have conducted business for over 50 years.
- The prevailing law expressly prohibits any prior declaration of ‘No Vending Zones’ prior to the survey (S 21 r/w First Schedule, Clause 3). Therefore, standard pleas of market associations and other local authorities such as congestion, overcrowding cannot be a ground for allowing declaration of vending zones or non-vending zones prior to survey that has to be conducted in accordance with the act and petitions seeking the such declaration of Non Vending Zones are malafides and an attempt to overreach the law.
Case List Below:-
|SL.NO||CASE NO.||COURT||PETITIONERS||DEFENDANT||REGARDING||COURTS ORDER|
|1||CIVIL MISC. WP 21612 OF 2016||ALLAHABAD HC||LOKESH KUMAR KHURANA||STATE OF UP AND ORS||REMOVAL OF 12 ILLEGAL FLEE MARKETS||REMOVE, REHABILITATE AND REGULATE FLEE MARKETS AND IDENTIFY NON VENDING ZONES|
|2||WP 1699/1987||SUPREME COURT||SUDHIR MADAN||MCD||IF THE LEGISLATURE INTERVENES AND FRAMES OTHER SCHEMES & REGULATIONS, THOSE WILL SUPERSEDE THE SCHEMES PREPARED BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.|
|3||SUPREME COURT||SODAN SINGH||NDMC||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||VENDORS HAVE A RIGHT TO CARRY ON TEHIR BUSINESS ACTIVITY UNDER ART. 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION. LIKE ALL OTHER RIGHTS THIS RIGHT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS. STREET VENDING SHOULD BE REGULATED.|
|4||LPA 766/2008||DELHI HIGH COURT||MANUSHI SANGHATAN||DDA||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||68 VENDORS PERMITTED TO HAWK IN NEHRU PLACE. TO DECLARE A PLACE NO VENDING ZONE, DDA HAS TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE WARD VENDING COMMITTEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SC DIRECTIONS AND THE THEN MCD SCHEME.|
|5||SUPREME COURT||GAINDA RAM||MCD||RIGHT TO VEND||IT IS THE RIGHT OF A VENDOR TO HAWK. HAWKING SHOULD, HOWEVER, ALSO BE REGULATED. THE SC FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT LEGILATE AND BRING OUT LAWS SO THAT THE VENDORS KNOW THE CONTOURS OF THEIR RIGHTS|
|6||SUPREME COURT||MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION||MUNICIPAL CORP. GREATER MUMBAI||HARRASMENT OF VENDORS||IN CASE OF CONFLICT B/W 2009 POLICY AND SCHEMES BROUGHT OUT BY MC, 2009 POLICY SHALL PREVAIL. GUIDELINES STATED IN THE JUDGEMENT SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE TILL APPORPRIATE LEGISLATION IS BROUGHT OUT BY THE APPROPRIATE GOVT.|
|7||WP 3574/2011||DELHI HIGH COURT||VAISO JAIN||NDMC||HARRASMENT AND EVICTION||NO PROTECTION TO VENDORS WHO DO NOT POSSES LICENCE/PERMISSION ISSUED BY NDMC|
|8||WP 144/2013||DELHI HIGH COURT||DELHI SHRAMIK SANGATHAN||DELHI POLICE||DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES||TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STRUCTURES CANNOT BE SET UP BY VENDORS. AUTHORITY TO DEMOLISH THE SAME GIVEN.|
|9||WP 340/2014||DELHI HIGH COURT||DHARAM CHAND||CHAIRMAN, NDMC||EVICTION FROM IN FRONT OF SC||RIGHT TO VEND IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS WHICH MAYBE REQUIRED TO KEEP FREE FROM SUCH TYPES OF KIOSKS FOR SECURITY REASONS.|
|10||WP 4303/2014||DELHI HIGH COURT||NASVI||SDMC||NOTICE PROHIBITING SALE OF CUT FRUITS, SUGARCANE JUICE AND EDIBLE ITEMS EXPOSED TO DUST AND FLIES ISSUED BY NDMC||ORDER DOESN’T REMAIN IN PLACE. HEALTH AND HYGIENE TO BE MAINTAINED BY VENDORS TO BE REGULATED ONLY BY FSSAI ACT AND STREET VENDORS ACT|
|11||WP 7337/2014||DELHI HIGH COURT||NAGENDRA YADAV||NDMC||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||DIRECTED THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE TVC WITHIN A PERIOD OF 8 WEEKS (FROM 30.10.2014). VENDORS TO SEEK TVCS HELP.|
|12||LPA 69/2015||DELHI HIGH COURT||RAJ SINGH||NDMC||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||TILL SPACE RESTRICTION OF 6FT X 4FT ARE MAINTAINED AND TVC DISCHARGES STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS NO IMPEDIMENT WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE CARRYING OUT OF STREET VENDING ACTIVITY.|
|13||WP 2556/2015||DELHI HIGH COURT||VYAPARI KALYAN MANDAL MAIN PUSHPU & ANR||SDMC & ORS||EVICTION FROM LAJPAT NAGAR||NEED FOR OCCURANCE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO DECLARATION OF VENDING ZONE UPON WHICH ONLY CAN EVICTION PROCESS TAKE PLACE.|
|14||WP 4364/2015||DELHI HIGH COURT||DARSHAN KUMAR||NDMC||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||NO RESTRAIN ORDERS ISSUED. PETITIONERS TO APPROACH TVC AS AND WHEN THEY ARE CONSITUTED. SECTION 3(3) OF THE ACT NOTED.|
|15||WP 6115/2015||DELHI HIGH COURT||BRAHM PAL||NDMC||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||UPHELD ORDER DATED 30.10.2014 IN NAGENDRA YADAV V NDMC CASE. IF VIRTUALLY NO RELIEFS ARE PRESSED IN PETITIONS THEREAFTER FILED, THE SAME WILL BE DISMISSED WITH COSTS.|
|16||WP 6622/2015||DELHI HIGH COURT||JANODAYA EKTA SAMITI||GNCTD||IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT||ENFORCEMENT OF THE SCHEME HAS BEEN STAYED AS IT OPPOSES THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 38 OF THE ACT|
|17||WP 6694/2015||DELHI HIGH COURT||RAJNESH||SDMC||INTERFERANCE IN BUSINESS||ORDER DATED 30.6.2015 IN BRAHM PAL CASE UPHELD. NO RESTRAINT ORDERS ISSUED. PETITIONERS TO APPROACH TVCS. COSTS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONERS.|
|18||LPA 136/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||BHOLA RAM PATEL||NDMC & ANR||EVICTION FROM BANGLA SAHIB||THE TVC TO CONDUCT A SURVEY WITHIN 2 MONTHS AFTER APPROPRIATELY NOTIFYING VENDORS OF THE SURVEY. IT CAN EVICT VENDORS WHO ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES ON THE BASIS OF THE ‘LAST COME FIRST GO’ PRINCIPLE|
|19||WP 1415/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||AKHILESH KUMAR||NDMC||EVICTION FROM PALIKA BAZAR||NO RESTRAINT ORDERS ISSUED. PETITIONERS TO APPROACH TVCS.|
|20||WP 2587/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||AKHIL BHARATIYA PAWANPUTRA…||GNCTD||ENFORCEMENT OF THE SCHEME HAS BEEN STAYED AS IT OPPOSES THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 38 OF THE ACT|
|21||WP 2592/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||NEW DELHI TRADERS ASSOCIATION||UNION OF INDIA||VALIDITY OF THE ACT||ENFORCEMENT OF THE SCHEME HAS BEEN STAYED AS IT OPPOSES THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 38 OF THE ACT|
|22||WP 4818/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||JANODAYA EKTA SAMITI||GNCTD||ENFORCEMENT OF THE SCHEME HAS BEEN STAYED AS IT OPPOSES THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 38 OF THE ACT|
|23||WP 5759/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||FEDERATION OF NEHRU PLACE ASSOCIATION||SDMC||REMOVAL OF VENDORS||UPHELD JUDGEMNET PASSED IN BHOLA RAM PATEL CASE|
|24||WP 6096/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||LAJPAT NAGAR TRADER WELFARE FEDERATION||UNION OF INDIA||VALIDITY OF THE ACT||ENFORCEMENT OF THE SCHEME HAS BEEN STAYED AS IT OPPOSES THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 38 OF THE ACT|
|25||WP 6130/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||HAWKERS ADHIKAR SURAKSHA SAMITI||UNION OF INDIA||VALIDITY OF SCHEME||NON-SQUATTING ZONE DECLARED PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT SHALL CONTINUE TO BE NON-SQUATTING ZONE. THEREFORE, EVICTION OF VENDORS ONLY FROM THESE ZONES TO BE CARRIED OUT.|
|26||WP 7174/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||RAJ KUMAR SINGH||SDMC||HARRASMENT AND EVICTION||UPHELD BHOLA RAM PATEL JUDGEMENT. NO RESTRAIN ORDERS TO BE PROVIDED. PETITIONERS TO APPROACH THE TVCS AS AND WHEN FORMED.|
|27||WP 8042/2016||DELHI HIGH COURT||AJAY MAKEN||COMMISIONER OF POLIC & ORS||EVICTION AND RELOCATION||NON-SQUATTING ZONE DECLARED PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT SHALL CONTINUE TO BE NON-SQUATTING ZONE. THEREFORE, EVICTION OF VENDORS ONLY FROM THESE ZONES TO BE CARRIED OUT.|
|28||CIVIL WRIT 9634/2015||PATNA HIGH COURT||BIHAR STATE FOOTPATH DUKANDAR ASSOCIATION||STATE OF BIHAR||IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT||DIRECTION TO MAKE RULES, SCHEME AND BYE-LAWS|
|29||WP 203/2016||AHMEDABAD HC||CHANDRAKANT RAMCHARAN SRIVASTAV||STATE OF GUJARAT||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||PLEA FOR INTERIM PLEA REJECTED|
|30||SPECIAL CIVIL APPL # 7421/2016||AHMEDABAD HC||RAJUBHAI PRABHAKARRAO NADURKAR||VADODRA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION||EVICTION AND RELOCATION||PROHIBITION FROM EVICTION TILL LAND IS ALLOCATED TO THE VENDORS. THE SAID RULE IS MADE ABSOLUTE TO THE AFORESAID EXTENT.|
|31||SLP 24378/2015||SUPREME COURT||HERITAGE CITY THADI-THELA||JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION||IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT||VALIDITY OF SEC.21 OF THE ACT UPHELD|
|32||PIL 36 OF 2010||BOMBAY HIGH COURT||JANHITH MANCH||BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP||REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL MARKETS||” “|
|33||WP 244/2011||BOMBAY HIGH COURT||SRI VILE PARLE KELVANI MANDAL||MUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||PROTECTION TO BE PROVIDED TO A STREET VENDOR ONLY IF HE HAS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS STATING THAT HE WAS A STREET VENDOR PRIOR TO 01/05/2014. EVICTION OF OTHERS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.|
|34||WP 2700 OF 2016||BOMBAY HIGH COURT||GOKUL PRASAD GUPTA & ANR||STATE OF MAHARASHTRA||EVICTION IN BORIVALI EAST||PROTECTION TO BE PROVIDED TO A STREET VENDOR ONLY IF HE HAS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS STATING THAT HE WAS A STREET VENDOR PRIOR TO 01/05/2014. EVICTION OF OTHERS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.|
|35||PIL 123 OF 2016||BOMBAY HC – AURANGABAD||HONAJI HEMRAJ CHAVAN AND ORS||STATE OF MAHARASHTRA||EVICTION AND RELOCATION||ONLY THOSE STREET VENDOR WHO ARE ENTITLED TO BE PROTECTED UNDER THE ACT WILL BE PROTECTED.|
|36||WP 16455/2015||KERALA HIGH COURT||T P CHERIAN PHILIP||NHAI||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||THE 2014 ACT DOES NOT HAVE AN OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER THE LAWS RELATING TO HIGHWAYS. STREET VENDORS OPERATING ON THE HIGHWAYS DO NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE DEFINITION OF STREET VENDOR PROVIDED IN THE ACT.|
|37||SECOND APPEAL 1126/2014||MADRAS HIGH COURT||MUGUNDAN||ANNA MGR MEMORIAL BEACH SMALL||EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS||STREET VENDING CANNOT TAKE PLACE ON THE SANDS OF BEACHES. NO PVT PARTY SHALL BE ALLOWED TO TAKE CONTROL OF OR COLLECT ANY MONEY FROM VENDORS ALLOWING THEM TO CARRY ON TEHIR BUSINESS ON BEACHES.|
|38||WP 4566/2014||MADRAS HIGH COURT||T. NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION||STATE OF TAMIL NADU||ENCROACHMENTS AND REMOVAL||RELOCATION OF STREET VENDORS TO OTHER AREAS TO FACILITATE FREE FLOW OF TRAFFIC|
|39||WP 18397/2014||MADRAS HIGH COURT||NOOR AHMED||STATE OF TAMIL NADU||IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT||DIRECTION TO MAKE RULES, SCHEME AND BYE-LAWS. EVICTION IS PROHIBITED TILL COMPLETION OF SURVEY. PETITIONERS NOT TO INCREASE SHOP SIZES TILL COMPLETION OF SURVEY.|
|40||WP 32622/2015||MADRAS HIGH COURT||DR. K R RAMASWAMY||STATE OF TAMIL NADU||REOCCUPANCY OF NO-VENDING ZONES||THE STATE IS REQUIRED TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO ENSURE THAT NO-HAWKING ZONES ARE CLEARED OF ALL ENCROACHMENT AND MAINTAINED AS A NO-HAWKING ZONE|
|41||WP 377/2017||RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT||MANOJ RATHOR AND ORS.||STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.||RIGHT TO VEND||IT IS DIRECTED THAT TILL THE NEXT DATE GIVEN IN AFORESAID ORDER DATE 11.01.2017, AS PER LIST ANNEXURE – 5 ATTACHED WITH THE WRIT PETITION , VENDORE NAMED THEREIN SHALL BE PERMITTED TO CARRY ON THEIR TRADE FROM RIDHI SIDHI CHOURAHA SULABH COMPLEX TO NEAR LINK ROAD NALA THROUGH THEIR EXSISTING VENDORE ONLY.|
|42||WP 8415/2016||RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT||MANOJ PAREEK AND ORS.||STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.||HARRASMENT AND EVICTION||THE STATUS QUO IS GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND THEY MAY CONTINUE TO CARRY ON THEIR TRADE FROM THE EXISTING VENDS.|
|43||WP 17763/2016||RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT||RAVINDRA SINGH AND ORS.||STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.||HARRASMENT AND EVICTION||THE STATUS QUO IS GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND THEY MAY CONTINUE TO CARRY ON THEIR TRADE FROM THE EXISTING VENDS.|