Judicial_Transpiracy_Reformation: mandamus restraining the respondent no. 1,2,4,5 and 6 for realization of user charges from street vendors of petitioners association from Thekedar till the registration fees for license by the allotment of space to the street vendors may not be given to them in consonance with National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

I N D E X

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.27476 OF 2010

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT – BULANDSHAHAR)

National Association of Street Vendors of India (Registration No. 757 of 2003 Registered Society under Societies Registration Act, 1963) through its District President Mohd. Siraj Sarfuddin, s/o Sri Peer Khan and others-------------------------------------------------Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and others-----------------------Respondents

Sl.no.	Particulars.	Dates.	Ann.	Pages.
1.	List of dates and Events.	--	-
2.	Misc. Application (Under Chapter XXII Rule 1 of High Court Rules, 1952)	--	-
3.	Writ Petition (Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)	--	-
4.	Copy of the registration certificate of petitioner no. 1	--	1
5.	Copy of the registration certificate of petitioner no. 2	--	2
6.	Copy of the registration certificate of petitioner no. 3	--	3
7.	Copy of the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009.	--	4
8.	Copy of the Govt. order issued by State Govt.	12.7.2006	5
9.	Copy of the representation submitted by petitioner no.1.		6
10.	Copy of the news item published in Dainik Jagran.	5.8.2009	7
11.	Copy of the relevant extract of aforesaid policy.	--	8
12.	Copy of the order passed in writ petition no.7897 of 2008.	4.9.2008	9
13.	Copy of the extract of the letter issued by Prime Minster.	--	10
14.	Copy of the extract of news item.	11.8.2009	11
15.	Affidavit.	--	-
16.	Vakalatnama.	--	-

Dt/- , 2010 (YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA)

Advocate.

Counsel for the Petitioners.

Chamber no. 139, High Court,

Allahabad.

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

LIST OF DATES AND EVENT

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 27476 OF 2010

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT – BULANDSHAHAR)

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and others-----------------------Respondents

Sl.no.	Dates.	Events.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Dt/- , 2010 (YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA)

Advocate.

Counsel for the Petitioners.

Chamber no. 139, High Court,

Allahabad.

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. OF 2010

(Under Section 151 of the C.P.C.)

On behalf of

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 27476 OF 2010

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT – BULANDSHAHAR)

1. National Association of Street Vendors of India (Registration No. 757 of 2003 Registered Society under Societies Registration Act, 1963) through its District President Mohd. Siraj Sarfuddin, s/o Sri Peer Khan, resident of Jannat Masjid, Gulawati, Post, Tehsil and District Bulandshahar.

2. Brihaspati Bazar Kalyan Samiti, Sikandarabad (Registered Society) through its President Mohd. Islam, s/o Bashir Ahmed, resident of Mohalla Ansarya, Police station and Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar.

3. Mangal Painth Bazar Vyapari Kalyan Samiti (Registration No. 493) through its President Mohd. Siraj, s/o Sarfuddin, resident of Jannat Masjid, Gulawati, Post, Tehsil and District Bulandshahar.

---------------------------------- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Uttar Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-9, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow.

2. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut.

3. District Magistrate, Bulandshahar.

4. Nagar Palika Parishad, Gulawati, District Bulandshahar through its Executive Officer.

5. Nagar Palika Parishad, Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar through its Executive Officer.

6. Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahar through its Executive Officer. ---------------------------------Respondents.

7. Union of India, through Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

------------------------Proforma Respondent.

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the aforesaid court.

The humble application of the above named applicant/ petitioner most respectfully showeth as under: -

1. That the full facts and circumstances of the case have been given in the accompanying writ petition, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an ad-interim mandamus restraining the respondent no. 1,2,4,5 and 6 for realization of user charges from street vendors of petitioners association from Thekedar till the registration fees for license by the allotment of space to the street vendors may not be given to them in consonance with National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 issued by respondent no.7 during pendency of present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.

P R A Y E R

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an ad-interim mandamus restraining the respondent no. 1,2,4,5 and 6 for realization of user charges from street vendors of petitioners association from Thekedar till the registration fees for license by the allotment of space to the street vendors may not be given to them in consonance with National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 issued by respondent no.7 during pendency of present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. And/or pass such other suitable order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.

Dt/- , 2010 (YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA)

Advocate.

Counsel for the Petitioners.

Chamber no. 139, High Court,

Allahabad.

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 27476 OF 2010

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT – BULANDSHAHAR)

3. Mangal Painth Bazar Vyapari Kalyan Samiti (Registration No. 493) through its President Mohd. Siraj, s/o Sarfuddin, resident of Jannat Masjid, Gulawati, Post, Tehsil and District Bulandshahar.

---------------------------------- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Uttar Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-9, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow.

2. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut.

3. District Magistrate, Bulandshahar.

4. Nagar Palika Parishad, Gulawati, District Bulandshahar through its Executive Officer.

5. Nagar Palika Parishad, Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar through its Executive Officer.

6. Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahar through its Executive Officer. --------------------------------Respondents.

7. Union of India, through Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

-----------------------Proforma Respondent.

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the aforesaid court.

The humble writ petition of the above named petitioners most respectfully showeth as under: -

1. That by means of this first writ petition, the petitioners society on behalf of its members Street Vendors, are seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent no.1 to 6 for realization of user charges through Thekedari system in pursuance of auction from the Street Vendors of petitioners association, inspite the prohibition to realize Tehbazari through Thekedari system by the Govt. Orders dated 12.7.2006 and 14.6.2006 and the enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Urban Vending and Business on Pavements (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007 formulated in furtherance of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2009 promulgated by Union of India, the respondent no.7 and no other writ petition against same cause of action has been filed or pending before this Hon’ble Court. The petitioners have not received any notice of caveat application on behalf of respondents till today in the present writ petition.

2. That the petitioners are registered societies seeking the protection of rights of street vendors and they have accrued their right to represent themselves in Town Vending Committee (T.V.C.) required to be constituted by the State Govt. at every city/town level, but the said committee has yet not been constituted by the State Government.

3. That the petitioner no.1 namely National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI) is a registered society having its administrative office at E-170 (Ground Floor) Preeti Vihar, Delhi and its Head Office is situated at Sudama Bhawan, Boring Road, Patna. The aforesaid society has got its different units at district level and Mohd. Siraj has got certificate of affiliation with the aforesaid society. There are about 3 Corores members involved at different units of district level in the aforesaid society (NASVI) in our country. The true copy of the registration certificate of petitioner no. 1 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

4. That Brihaspati Bazar Kalyan Samiti, Sikandarabad, the petitioner no.2 is also protecting right of such Pheriwalas and Street Vendors, who participated their install into the weekly market conducted in different places in the district Bulandshahar. Mohd. Islam is the President of aforesaid society representing before this Hon’ble Court on behalf of such Pheriwalas in order to restrain the respondents from realization of illegal Tehbazari from its members through Thekedari system, which has been abolished by the State Govt. in order to provide rights to Street Vendors to their survival and to earn their livelihood. The true copy of the registration certificate of petitioner no. 2 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.2 to this writ petition.

5. That Mangal Painth Bazar Vyapari Kalyan Samiti having its registration No. 493 is also discharging its duties through its President Mohd. Siraj, who is also having its affiliation with National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI). The true copy of the registration certificate of petitioner no. 3 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.3 to this writ petition.

6. That the policy decision over National Policy on Urban Street Vendors and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhawan was taken initially in the year 2004 and subsequently thereafter the National Policy was formulated in 2009. It was observed in case of Saudan Singh & others Versus New Delhi Municipal Council 1989 that in the exigency of the circumstances, the small traders on the side walks can considerably add to the comfort and convenience of the general public by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price and as such right to carry on trade or business by these Street Vendors is conferred under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, on street pavements and same cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-passing and for no other use. The true copy of the National Policy of Urban Street Vendors 2009 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.4 to this writ petition.

7. That it is observed that Street Vendors are often those who are unable to get regular jobs in the remunerative formal sector on account of their low level of education and skills. Estimates of average earning of street vendors by studies referred to in the report on conditions of work and promotion of livelihoods in the unorganized sector, 2007 of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (N.C.E.U.S.). Thus the Central Govt. has taken a policy decision to implement Town Vending Committee as a measurement of organization of participative processes and provided a restriction upon realization of Tehbazari for a Street Vendor till they may not be given adequate atmosphere to earn their livelihood.

8. That the Town Vending Committee (T.V.C.), required to be constituted at every city/ town level, which shall be coordinated by a convener as nominated by urban local body concern. The local authority will be represented by its Nagar Ayukt, while representative of Street Vendors through their respective society may take participation regarding the enforcement of certain charges required to be incurred for smooth functioning of the local markets regulated by urban body including Nagar Nigam, Nagar Panchayat etc.

9. That it is submitted that in national workshop the right of street vendors has been found as 90% of country working force informal sectors providing contribution to the extent of 63% of Gross Domestic Product (G.D.P.) and 50% of its saving.

10. That the size of urban informal sector in Indian cities and various towns varies between 45% to 80% of the working population and as such these street vendors are playing a significant role in national building of our nation. It provides employment to the poor sections of the society and it further generates employment opportunity in Small Scale Industries, housing based workshop and thus being extended through self help group and micro finance institution.

11. That in this regard prior to Saudan Singh case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bombay Hawkers Union Versus Bombay Municipal Corporation case had already recognised the importance of the services rendered by the street vendors to its consumers and simultaneously protection of their right to earn their livelihood through such earning.

12. That on account of all these contingencies and circumstances prevalent, the State Government promulgated the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Vending and Business on Pavement (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007.

13. That under Rule 5 there has been a constitution of city vending committee comprising of municipal authority in every municipal corporation and the members of city vending committee shall be the Mayor as its Chairman, District Magistrate, the officer of traffic and local police nominated by Senior Superintendent of Police, an officer of public land owning authority or development or institution from government side, while members of trader and resident welfare society, a representative from leading bank and representative of association of street vendors, total 7 members comprising of city vending committee.

14. That likewise there has been ward vending committee comprising of local members of ward as its Chairman, which has been empowered to realize the license fees from street vendors.

15. That the State Government in order to ensure the national policy of urban street vendors as implemented by Govt. of India for the development of cities and for elimination of the poverty as issued from time to time has taken the decision not to realize any Tehbazari and implement functioning thereof in pursuance of enactment namely Urban Vending and Business on Pavement (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007 and the directions were issued not to realize any Tehbazari as realization of said Tehbazari from these street vendors provide further encroachment upon use of transportation and create many anatomy. The true copy of the Govt. order dated 12.7.2006 issued by State Govt. is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.5 to this writ petition.

16. That the respondent no. 1,2,4,5 and 6 have taken an illegal decision contrary to guide lines issued by Govt. of India as well as their own enactment and the decision taken by the State Govt. not to implement the realization of Tehbazari from street vendors, but started realization of user charges by giving the contract even prior to passing of any amendment in municipality law and Uttar Pradesh Nagar Nigam Act, 1959. A publication to this effect has been published in daily news paper and in pursuance thereof the advertisement have been issued in the newspaper for conducting auction of the market for appointment of the middleman/ Thekedar, who has been empowered to realize the user charges from street vendors.

17. That as soon as the information to this effect was communicated, the petitioner no.1 being District President submitted a representation to the --------------------------. The true copy of the representation dated -----------submitted by petitioner no.1 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.6 to this writ petition.

18. That the petitioners are also filing the copy of news item having information of realization of user charges even prior to make any amendment in Rules, 2007. On the basis of said advertisement the respondent no.2 has implemented the policy of appointing Thekedar for realization of user charges. The true copy of the news item published in Dainik Jagran on 5.8.2009 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.7 to this writ petition.

19. That according to the present enactment issued in pursuance of National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 by the Govt. of India, there can only be collection of revenue from the Street vendors for realization of registration fees and monthly registration charges and fine and other charges, if any, for which town vendors committee has been empowered to access to the proportion of revenue generated from registration fees as per regulation 4.6 pertaining to the collection of revenue. The true copy of the relevant extract of aforesaid policy is filed herewith in order to demonstrate the power of the State Govt. and respective Nagar Nigam, but there is no power for realization of user charge is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.8 to this writ petition.

20. That in this connection it is submitted that realization of license fees is regulatory in nature and the element of quid pro quo should be given for implementation of license fees. This fees is broadly classified as compensatory fees and regulatory fees and every compensatory fees the element of quid pro quo is necessary and as such there cannot be user charges realized from the street vendors till the licensing policy may not be implemented for providing a right to these vendors in consonance with requirement of the enactment i.e. Rules, 2007.

21. That these rules of 2007 has been framed under section 540 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Nagar Nigam Act, 1959, wherein it is required that without prior publication of any amendment in the aforesaid rules in the Govt. Gazette there cannot be any decision taken by the authority for realization of user charges from street vendors. Thus the realization of user charges is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14,19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

22. That the protection against realization of any charge/ tax from street vendors has been duly protected by promulgation of protection of human right. These street vendors are facing the financial hardships even just to earn their livelihood from earning collected after sale of their articles like vegetable, toys, cosmetic items and readymade garments etc. in which there is no saving except to fulfill their requirement for right to live with human dignity is derived from Article 14,19,21 readwith Article 39 (e) & (f) and Article 41 and 42 of the Constitution of India.

23. That the power for realization of user charge for levy of any amount on the street vendors through Thekedari system will lead to the situation or realization of Gunda Tax, in variably under the different heads and the quantum of amount chargeable by them. Such a power has not been given to the Nagar Nigam for implementation of same through unilateral resolution, without being approved by the competent legislative power and until the byelaws may not be framed under any enactment or under section 239 of U.P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, no such power is available to the respondents (Padam Dutt Vs. Zila Panchayat, Pithouragarh 1987 U.P.L.B.& E.C. Page 32 [D.B.]).

24. That this Hon’ble Court (Lucknow Bench) in some other writ petition no.7997 of 2008 (Lucknow Footpath Vyapar Samanyavay Samiti Versus State of U.P.) was pleased to direct that why the Rules of 2007 have yet not been implemented and why the committees have not been constituted and what is the reason of non-compliance of the terms of the National Policy of Urban Street Vendors in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The true copy of the order passed in writ petition no.7897 of 2008 on 4.9.2008 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.9 to this writ petition.

25. That the petitioners have been communicated that the union of India formulated the Policy of 2009 and the Prime Minister of India has written a letter to the different Chief Minister of the State Government including the respondents that there must be the allotment of the space to street vendors for the sale of their commodity by identifying their area for mobile vending. The true copy of the relevant extract of the aforesaid letter issued by Prime Minster and the extract of news item published on 11.8.2009 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.10 and 11 to this writ petition.

26. That apart from this after the promulgation of the three tier system of governance of the different bodies at different level in view of the 73^rd amendment in the Constitution of India, there has been the dispute pertaining to the realization of the charges by the different Samiti under several acts and till the suitable amendment may not be taken place under the provisions of specific rules framed by the State Govt. in consonance with the policy of Street Vendors by the Central Govt. as envisaged under Rules of 2007, no such realization of user charges through contractor would have been imposed without implementation of the license policy and registration of the street vendors in consonance with the requirement of the provisions under the aforesaid enactment. Thus the action of respondents in realization of user charges through contractor is illegal, void and without jurisdiction.

27. That the Hon’ble Apex court apart from the cases dealt with in previous paragraphs has taken note of these human rights in case of Bandhuwa Mukti Morcha 1984 (3) S.C.C. page 161 and in Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1996 (2) S.C.C. 549. In these cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with food, water, decent, environment education and medical care are duly protected by expansion of human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

28. That in this manner it is therefore most respectfully prayed that till the registration fees for license issued to the street vendors may not be charged towards monthly fees by allotment of the space to the street vendors, no other charge including user charge be realized from street vendors of petitioners association as this may only be implemented after approval of town vending committee constituted under provisions of enactment regulating such right guaranteed to the street vendors.

29. That the petitioners have got no other equally effective and speedy alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by invoking its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia on the following amongst other grounds:

G R O U N D S

a. Because, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with their right in a case in 1985 inre. Bombay Hawkers Union Versus Bombay Municipal Corporation, wherein the Apex court recognized the important service rendered to consumers by street vendors and their right to earn livelihood.

b. Because, in another case in 1989 inre. Soudhan Singh etc. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation and others the Hon’ble Apex court has declared the services of street vendors is exigency of circumstances providing comfort and convenience to the general public by making ordinary articles at lesser prices by small traders and as such right to carry on the trade of business mentioned in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India on street pavement is considered as the fundamental right guaranteed to the vendors of petitioners society. It has been held that if these rights are properly regulated the same cannot be denied on the ground of inconvenience to the passer by on the street.

c. Because, on account of all these contingencies, the State Government has enumerated the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Vending and Business on Pavement (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007.

d. Because, under Rule 5 there has been a constitution of city vending committee comprising of municipal authority in every municipal corporation and the members of city vending committee shall be the Mayor as its Chairman, District Magistrate, the officer of traffic and local police nominated by Senior Superintendent of Police, an officer of public land owning authority or development or institution from government side, while members of trader and resident welfare society, a representative from leading bank and representative of association of street vendors, total 7 members comprising of city vending committee.

e. Because, the State Government in order to ensure the national policy of urban street vendors as implemented by Govt. of India for the development of cities and for elimination of the poverty as issued from time to time has taken the decision not to realize any Tehbazari and implement functioning thereof in pursuance of enactment namely Urban Vending and Business on Pavement (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007 and the directions were issued not to realize any Tehbazari as realization of said Tehbazari from these street vendors provide further encroachment upon use of transportation and create many anatomy.

f. Because, the respondents have taken an illegal decision contrary to guide lines issued by Govt. of India as well as their own enactment and the decision taken by the State Govt. not to implement the realization of Tehbazari from street vendors, but started realization of user charges by giving the contract even prior to passing of any amendment in municipality law and Uttar Pradesh Nagar Nigam Act, 1959.

g. Because, according to the present enactment issued in pursuance of National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 by the Govt. of India, there can only be collection of revenue from the Street vendors for realization of registration fees and monthly registration charges and fine and other charges, if any, for which town vendors committee has been empowered to access to the proportion of revenue generated from registration fees as per regulation 4.6 pertaining to the collection of revenue.

h. Because, the realization of license fees is regulatory in nature and the element of quid pro quo should be given for implementation of license fees. This fees is broadly classified as compensatory fees and regulatory fees and every compensatory fees the element of quid pro quo is necessary and as such there cannot be user charges realized from the street vendors till the licensing policy may not be implemented for providing a right to these vendors in consonance with requirement of the enactment i.e. Rules, 2007.

i. Because, these rules of 2007 has been framed under section 540 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Nagar Nigam Act, 1959, wherein it is required that without prior publication of any amendment in the aforesaid rules in the Govt. Gazette there cannot be any decision taken by the authority for realization of user charges from street vendors. Thus the realization of user charges is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14,19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

j. Because, the protection against realization of any charge/ tax from street vendors has been duly protected by promulgation of protection of human right. These street vendors are facing the financial hardships even just to earn their livelihood from earning collected after sale of their articles like vegetable, toys, cosmetic items and readymade garments etc. in which there is no saving except to fulfill their requirement for right to live with human dignity is derived from Article 14,19,21 readwith Article 39 (e) & (f) and Article 41 and 42 of the Constitution of India.

k. Because, the power for realization of user charge for levy of any amount on the street vendors through Thekedari system will lead to the situation or realization of Gunda Tax, in variably under the different heads and the quantum of amount chargeable by them. Such a power has not been given to the Nagar Nigam for implementation of same through unilateral resolution, without being approved by the competent legislative power and until the byelaws may not be framed under any enactment or under section 239 of U.P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, no such power is available to the respondents (Padam Dutt Vs. Zila Panchayat, Pithouragarh 1987 U.P.L.B.& E.C. Page 32 [D.B.]).

l. Because, after the promulgation of the three tier system of governance of the different bodies at different level in view of the 73^rd amendment in the Constitution of India, there has been the dispute pertaining to the realization of the charges by the different Samiti under several acts and till the suitable amendment may not be taken place under the provisions of specific rules framed by the State Govt. in consonance with the policy of Street Vendors by the Central Govt. as envisaged under Rules of 2007, no such realization of user charges through contractor would have been imposed without implementation of the license policy and registration of the street vendors in consonance with the requirement of the provisions under the aforesaid enactment. Thus the action of respondents in realization of user charges through contractor is illegal, void and without jurisdiction.

m. Because, the Hon’ble Apex court apart from the cases dealt with in previous paragraphs has taken note of these human rights in case of Bandhuwa Mukti Morcha 1984 (3) S.C.C. page 161 and in Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1996 (2) S.C.C. 549. In these cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with food, water, decent, environment education and medical care are duly protected by expansion of human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

n. Because, in this manner it is therefore most respectfully prayed that till the registration fees for license issued to the street vendors may not be charged towards monthly fees by allotment of the space to the street vendors, no other charge including user charge be realized from street vendors of petitioners association as this may only be implemented after approval of town vending committee constituted under provisions of enactment regulating such right guaranteed to the street vendors.

P R A Y E R

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: -

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 1,2,4,5 and 6 for realization of user charges from street vendors of petitioners association from Thekedar till the registration fees for license by the allotment of space to the street vendors may not be given to them in consonance with National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 issued by respondent no.7.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect the Thekedari system of realization of user charges from street vendors in pursuance of advertisement issued on 5.8.2009.

(iii) issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.

Dt/- , 2010 (YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA)

Advocate.

Counsel for the Petitioners.

Chamber no. 139, High Court,

Allahabad.

Judicial_Transpiracy_Reformation

Friday, May 25, 2012

No comments:

About Me