WPMS/2804/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3690 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

                          SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
                                      AND
                           SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

18th NOVEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION (MS) No. 2804 OF 2022 Between:

Smt. Manju Bora .......Petitioner

and

State of Uttarakhand and another ....Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents         :   Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing
                                        Counsel     for    the    State     of
                                        Uttarakhand/respondent No. 1.

Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

The petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition to seek a direction to the respondents to increase

the timing of the street-vendors to display their

merchandise / wares, on one side of the pathway between

the V.I.P. car parking to Gurudwara Sahib in an area

restricted to 4 feet X 6 feet.

2. The petitioner has placed on record the order

dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court

in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 151 of 2015 'Ms. Anjali Bhargawa

vs. State of Uttarakhand', which permitted the vendors to

display their merchandise / wares between 04:00 PM to 06:00 PM in winters, i.e. between 16th September to 14th

March only on one side of the pathway between the V.I.P.

car parking to Gurudwara Sahib in an area restricted to 4

feet X 6 feet, which was subsequently amended to 4 feet X

4 feet.

3. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel

for the State of Uttarakhand, who appears on advance

notice, submits that the petitioner has concealed the fact

that subsequent orders have been passed for shifting of the

vendors to other identified zones. He submits that even

though areas have been identified, the vendors continue to

squat in the same area.

4. We do not find any merit in this petition for the

reason that since the passing of the earlier order in the year

2018, the traffic congestion and population has only

increased, and there can be no justification for permitting

the petitioner to continue her vending activities, particularly

when other areas have been identified for that purpose.

5. The writ petition is dismissed.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 18th November, 2022 Rathour