Examine grievances of street vendors afresh, HC tells Chandigarh Admn

In one of the significant judgments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration as well as the Town Vending Committee to examine the grievances of the street vendors afresh, in light of the provisions contained under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood & Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, as well as consequential rules, notifications and bylaws.

The court has directed that a decision should be taken at the competent level within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor passed the order on a petition filed by PPBTS Residents Welfare Society.

In the petition, the society of the vendors had prayed for directions to the respondents to regulate the street vending activities carried out by vendors of the petitioning society and to protect their rights as street vendors under the provisions of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood & Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

On the other hand, the claim of the society was opposed by the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation relying upon a notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration dated January 9, 2013. In the notification many guidelines for regulating the “street hawkers” in the area of Chandigarh had been issued.

Relying upon the notification issued in 2013 as well as the notification dated December 20, 2018, the respondents contend that a member of the society cannot be permitted to carry out activities of sale of bidi, cigarette and other tobacco items, which are prohibited by the law. According to the respondents, as per the decision, the vendors of the petitioner association have been permitted to switch over to any other trade, and therefore, no further direction in the writ petition was required to be issued.

Ashwani Kumar Chopra, senior counsel for the petitioner society, on the other hand, contended that the notification dated January 9, 2013, was a decision taken by the Chandigarh Administration while the Street Vendors Bill, 2012, was being finalised by the Parliament. It is contended that the Bill was introduced in 2012 and during its consideration, a decision was apparently taken by the Administration on January 9, 2013. After the Bill of 2012 was formalised into the Act of 2014, the notification had ceased to subsist in law and could not constitute any basis for denying consideration to the petitioner’s claim.

After hearing the arguments the high court said that, “We find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the senior counsel for the petitioner society that the notification was actually a decision taken by the Chandigarh Administration, while the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2012, was under consideration of the Government of India.

The decision taken in the notification was therefore one taken in the interregnum and was to continue till an appropriate decision was taken to enact the Street Vendors Act. The subsequent decisions contained in the notification as well as those of the Town Vending Committee apparently are influenced by the notification. The Act has since brought about a change in the ground situation, and the definition of ‘street vendor’ now stands statutorily inscribed in the new legislation, which is operating and binding.

The Chandigarh Administration as well as the Town Vending Committee will therefore have to re-examine the matter with reference to the provisions contained in the Act, so as to deal with the claim of the present petitioners.

In such circumstances, this petition stands disposed of with the direction to the respondents to examine the grievance of the petitioner afresh in light of the provisions contained under the Act as well as consequential rules, notifications and bylaws. Such decision shall be taken at the competent level within three months of the date of receipt of this order.