High Court upholds rule empowering Mayor-led body to hear vendors’ pleas

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a rule empowering a Mayor-led body to hear street vendors’ appeals. Taking up a review application, a Division Bench rejected a plea that questioned the legality of the notification constituting the appellate authority headed by the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation (MC), Chandigarh.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry held that the petitioner had failed to establish any infirmity in the constitution of the appellate authority or in the framing of Rule 9 of the Union Territory of Chandigarh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2015.

The petitioner had contended that the MC had no jurisdiction to constitute an appellate authority comprising the Mayor and two councillors under the notification dated December 20, 2024. The court, however, found no merit in the challenge and concluded that the constitution of the authority was strictly in accordance with the 2015 Rules framed under the Central Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

“The impugned Rules of 2015 have been duly framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 36 read with sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 2014,” the Bench observed. “Moreover, Rule 9 specifically authorises the local authority to constitute the appellate authority comprising the Mayor or President as Chairperson and two other members of the local authority as decided in the General Board meeting.”

The court took note that the General House of the Municipal Corporation, in its 339th meeting held on September 26, 2024, had approved the constitution of the appellate authority “for hearing appeals against the orders or decisions of the Grievance Redressal and Dispute Resolution Committee and the Town Vending Committee.”

Rejecting the plea for review, the Bench added that no argument was advanced on the legality of the 2015 Rules during the hearing of the batch of petitions earlier disposed of on August 7.

“The counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity or illegality in the constitution of the appellate authority by respondent No. 4 by passing the impugned notification dated December 20, 2024, in exercise of the powers so vested by Rule 9,” the judgment recorded, while holding that the municipal body had “acted in accordance with powers vested in it by the Rules duly framed by the Central Government,” the Bench asserted.