HC stays order cancelling licences of street vendors
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of orders cancelling licence of street vendors who could not clear their dues, including vending fee and penalty, after relocation from one Sector to another.
The Bench, at the same time, allowed the petitioner-vendors to challenge the orders by filing an appeal before the competent appellate authority.
The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri upheld the show-cause notice issued to the street vendors after ruling that the Town Vending Committee (TVC) was duly empowered.
The Bench made it clear that the powers to the TVC stemmed from the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2015.
The petitioners, registered street vendors in Chandigarh, had initially been allotted vending sites in Sector 19 after a survey conducted by the Municipal Corporation in 2016. They were issued survey IDs and provisional certificates, permitting them to operate from their designated locations. They were later relocated to different sectors, including Sectors 15, 23, and 46, allegedly without following the due process.
The petitioners contended that the relocation severely impacted their ability to earn a livelihood due to a lack of footfall in the new areas. It was alleged that multiple representations were made by the vendors seeking permission to return to Sector 19, but the authorities did not respond.
Subsequently, the TVC, in a meeting held on July 6, 2023, delegated its powers to the Additional Commissioner/
Joint Commissioner of the MC to decide on the cancellation of vending licences as per legal provisions. A public notice was issued in local newspapers, instructing vendors to clear their dues by February 28, 2024. Another notice followed, giving a final opportunity to defaulting vendors to clear their vending fees and penalties by July 31, 2024.
The petitioners challenged the notices issued under Section 10 of the Act of 2014, arguing that the initiation of proceedings by the Additional Commissioner, instead of the TVC itself, rendered the cancellation orders illegal. They further claimed that the relocation made it impossible for them to pay their vending fees and penalties, leading to the revocation of their licences.
Disposing of the plea, the Bench held that the power to cancel vending licences was vested in the TVC under Section 10 of the Act and Rule 12 of the Rules. The court observed that the process of initiating action against the vendors began with the Additional Commissioner, but it ultimately merged into a valid exercise of authority by the TVC, which passed the final order.
Rejecting the petitioners’ argument that the initial action by the Additional Commissioner was illegal, the court clarified that administrative functions had been lawfully delegated to the officer concerned. Since the final cancellation order had been passed by the TVC, the court found no legal infirmity in the process.
The Bench acknowledged the vendors’ financial difficulties arising from their relocation but made it clear that economic hardship alone could not justify overturning a legally valid decision. The court emphasised that non-payment of vending fees and penalties, coupled with non-compliance with notices, left no ground for interference in the cancellation of licences.
