Judicial_Transpiracy_Reformation: National Association of Street Vendors of India (Registration No. 757 of 2003 Registered Society under Society Registration Act, 1963)

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

I N D E X

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2009

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT – BAREILLY)

National Association of Street Vendors of India (Registration No. 757 of 2003 Registered Society under Society Registration Act, 1963) through its Executive Member, Uttar Pradesh Santosh Kumar Gupta, s/o Sri Ram Asare Lal Gupta & another

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

Versus

Union of India and others ----------------------------------Respondents

Sl.no.	Particulars.	Dates.	Ann.	Pages.
1.	List of dates and Events.	--	-
2.	Stay 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 National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009.	2003	1
5.	Copy of the registration certificate and the Bye-laws of petitioner no.2 society.	2007-08	2
6.	Copy of the Govt. order issued by State Govt.	12.7.2006	3
7.	Copy of the representation submitted by petitioner no.1.	30.5.2009	4
8.	Copy of the news item published in Amar Ujala.	26.7.2009	5
9.	Copy of the news item published in Dainik Jagran.	5.8.2009	6
10	Copy of the relevant extract of aforesaid policy.	--	7
11	Order passed in writ petition no. 7897 of 2008 Lucknow Footpath Vyapar Samanyavaj SamitiVersus State Of U.P.	4.9.2008	-
12	Letter of prime Minister has written a letter to the different chief Minister and the information communicated to the petitioners	August,09	-
	extract of the news Item published	11.8. 2009
	Copy of news item having Auction information of for appointment of Tekedar ( Contractors) for realization of User Charges	25.8.2009
11	Affidavit.
12	Vakalatnama.

Dt/- Aug, 2009 ( 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. OF 2009

(DISTRICT – BAREILLY)

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

Versus

Union of India and others --------------------------------Respondents

Sl.no.	Dates.	Events.
1.	2003	The petitioner no.1 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 Sudama Bhawan, Boring Road, Patna. The aforesaid society is governed by National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 issued by respondent no.1 having the safe-guard provided to this important segment of un-organized sector in the country.
2.	12.7.2006	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.
3.	2007	The State Government has enumerated the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Vending and Business on Pavement (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007.
4.	2007-08	The petitioner no.2 is also a registered society of Street Vendors of a particular locality of Kutubkhana Sabji Mandi, Bareilly and the President of petitioner no.2 is also a member of National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI) through its Coordinator Santosh Kumar Gupta, which is looking after welfare of the Street Vendors in the representative capacity.
5.	2009	National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 issued by respondent no.1 having the safe-guard provided to this important segment of un-organized sector in the country.
6.	30.5.2009	The petitioner no.1 being Executive Member Uttar Pradesh and the President of Thela Fad Khokha Parishad submitted a representation to the Nagar Ayukt, Bareilly on 30.5.2009.
7.	26.7.2009	News item published in Amar Ujala having information of realization of user charges and advertisement given in pursuance of some order issued on 25.7.2009.
8.	5.8.2009	News item published in Dainik Jagran having implementation of the policy of appointing Thekedar for realization of user charges.

Dt/- Aug, 2009 ( 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 2009

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

On behalf of

------------------------Petitioners/ Applicants.

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2009

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT – BAREILLY)

1. National Association of Street Vendors of India(Registration No. 757 of 2003 Registered Society under Society Registration Act, 1963) through its Executive Member, Uttar Pradesh Santosh Kumar Gupta, s/o Sri Ram Asare Lal Gupta, resident of 623, Katra Chand Khan, Bareilly, District Bareilly.

2. Prachin Kutubkhana Sabji Vikreta Welfare Association, Kutubkhana Sabji Mandi, Bareilly ( A Registered Society bearing Registration No. 785/2007-08 under Societies Registration Act) through its President Israr Ali Quraishi, son of Usman Ali Quraishi, resident of 672, Mohalla Azam Nagar, Bareilly, District Bareilly -------------- Petitioners

Versus

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

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

3. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly.

4. Mayor, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly/ Chairman, District Vendors Committee, Bareilly.

5. Nagar Nigam, Bareilly through its Nagar Ayukt

6. District Magistrate, Bareilly

7. Senior Superiendent of Police, Bareilly.

-----------------------Respondents.

To,

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

The humble application of the above named applicant/ petitioners 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. 2 to 4 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.1 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. 2 to 4 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.1 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/- 17^th Aug, 2009 ( 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. OF 2009

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT – BAREILLY)

1. National Association of Street Vendors of India (Registration No. 757 of 2003Registered Society under Society Registration Act, 1963) through its Executive Member, Uttar Pradesh Santosh Kumar Gupta, s/o Sri Ram Asare Lal Gupta, resident of 623, Katra Chand Khan, Bareilly, District Bareilly.

2. Prachin Kutubkhana Sabji Vikreta Welfare Association, Kutubkhana Sabji Mandi, Bareilly ( A registered Society bearing Registration No. 785/2007-08 under Societies Registration Act) through its President Israr Quraishi, son of Usman Quraishi, resident of 672, Mohalla Azam Nagar, Bareilly, District Bareilly

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

Versus

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

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

3. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly.

4. Mayor, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly/ Chairman, District Street Vendors Committee, Bareilly.

5. Nagar Nigam, Bareilly through its Nagar Ayukt

6. District Magistrate, Bareilly

7. Senior Superiendent of Police, Bareilly.

------------------------Respondents

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 are seeking relief for implementation of license policy as enumerated by the respondent no.1 and 2 under National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 to the Urban Street Vendors in furtherance of provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Vending and Business on Pavements (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007 and not realize the User Charges from them except registration fees, maintenance charges and Fine other charges from the street vendors of petitioners association 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 case.

2. That the petitioner no.1 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 Sudama Bhawan, Boring Road, Patna. The aforesaid society is governed by National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 issued by respondent no.1 having the safe-guard provided to this important segment of un-organized sector in the country. The true copy of the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors 2009 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

3. That the petitioner no.2 is also a registered society of Street Vendors of a particular locality of Kutubkhana Sabji Mandi, Bareilly and the President of petitioner no.2 is also a member of National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI) through its Coordinator Santosh Kumar Gupta, which is looking after welfare of the Street Vendors in the representative capacity. The true copy of the registration certificate and the Bye-laws of petitioner no.2 society are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.2 to this writ petition.

4. That there is 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 respondent no.4 shall be termed as local authority and is being represented by Chief Executive Officer/ Nagar Ayukt of concerned urban local body.

5. That it is submitted that there has been national workshops on the right of street vendors as 90% of country work force is an informal sector providing contribution to the extent of 63% of countries Gross Domestic Product (G.D.P.) and 50% of saving.

6. 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 the street vendors are playing a significant role in nation building, which appears employment to the poorest sections of the society and generate employment opportunity in Small Scale Industries, house based works and thus extended through self help group and micro finance institution.

7. That 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.

8. That 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.

9. That 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.3 to this writ petition.

13. That the respondent no. 2 to 4 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 by respondent no.4 for conducting auction of the market for appointment of the middleman/ Thekedar, who has been empowered to realize the user charges from street vendors.

14. That as soon as the information to this effect was communicated, the petitioner no.1 being Executive Member Uttar Pradesh and the President of Thela Fad Khokha Parishad submitted a representation to the Nagar Ayukt, Bareilly on 30.5.2009. The true copy of the representation dated 30.5.2009 submitted by petitioner no.1 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.4 to this writ petition.

15. That the petitioners are also filing the copy of news item having information of realization of user charges and advertisement given in pursuance of some order issued on 25.7.2009 even prior to make any amendment in Rules, 2007. On the basis of said advertisement the respondent no.3 has implemented the policy of appointing Thekedar for realization of user charges. However, except one mandi at C.B. Ganj Chhoti Bazar, Bareilly auction for realization of user charges through Thekedar could not be implemented for which another date has been fixed for realization of said charges. The true copy of the news item published in Amar Ujala dated 26.7.2009 and news item published in Dainik Jagran on 5.8.2009 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.5 and 6 to this writ petition.

16. 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 charges is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.7 to this writ petition.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.).

21. That this Hon’ble Court ( Lucknow bench ) in some other writ petition no. 7897 of 2008 Lucknow Footpath Vyapar Samanyavaj Samiti Versus State Of U.P. case 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 the terms of the Nastional Policy of urban street venders 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.8 to this writ petition.

22. That the petitioners have been communicated that the union of India formulated the policy of 2009 and the prime Minister 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 venders for the sale of their commodity by identifying their area for mobile vending. The true copy of the relevant extract of aforesaid information communicated to the petitioners and the extract of the news Item published on 11. 8. 2009 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.9 and 10 to this writ petition.

23. That an advertisement in continuation of the previous advertisement published on 25.7.2009, the advertisement has been issued again on 25.8.2009 in the news papers fixing the date of auction proposed on 2.9.2009 again for appointing contractors for realization of the user charges from the members of the petitioners associations. It is submitted that the state government was bound to provide an space of 4 square Yards to the street venders in furtherance of commitments, which has yet not been done despite the directions issued by this Hon’ble court. The process of registration has yet not been completed by the Nagar Nigam by providing allotment of the Space. It is submitted that that realization of Tehbajari has already been stopped by the policy decision, but without implementation of policy by the Government and compliance of the order passed in writ petition no. 7897 of 2008 Lucknow Footpath Vyapar Samanyavaj Samiti Versus State Of U.P. on 4.9.2008, The true copy of the news item on 25.8.2009, which is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.11 to this writ petition.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 in re. 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. Sodan Singh and others. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council 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 anotomy.

f. Because, the respondent no. 2 to 4 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 read with 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. 2 to 4 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.1.

(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 alleged proposal of respondent no.4 and advertisement issued on 26.7.2009 and 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/- 17^th Aug, 2009 ( YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA )

Advocate.

Counsel for the Petitioners.

Chamber no. 139, High Court, Allahabad.

Judicial_Transpiracy_Reformation

Friday, May 25, 2012

National Association of Street Vendors of India (Registration No. 757 of 2003 Registered Society under Society Registration Act, 1963)

No comments:

About Me