[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1668/2023 on 28 November, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:10632
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS/1655/2023
With
WPMS/1666/2023
WPMS/1668/2023
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
No representation for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the
State..
2. Since common questions of law and fact
are involved in these petitions, therefore they
are heard together and are being decided by a
common judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 1655 of 2023
(MS) alone are being discussed and considered.
3. These writ petitions were filed in the year
2023. Registry has pointed out certain defects
which have not been cured despite several
opportunities to petitioners.
4. According to petitioners, they were
running meat shop within industrial estate,
which is commonly known as SIDCUL in
District Haridwar. According to them, the
temporary shops from which they were doing
business have been demolished leaving
petitioners without any source of livelihood.
5. According to petitioners, they are entitled
to protection under Street Vendors (Protection of
Livelihood and Regulations) Act, 2014 (Act No.
2025:UHC:10632
7 of 2014).
6. By means of Writ Petition No. 1655 of
2023 (SS), petitioner has sought following
reliefs:
"A. During the pendency of instant writ petition, issue an
order or direction or writ, in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondent nos 1, 2,3, and 4 to permit the petitioner to
continue his work from the same place and provide temporary
accommodation for working otherwise the petitioner shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated by any
means.
B. Issue a writ, in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondent nos. respondent no 1, 2, 3 and 4 to provide proper
shop in the same place, since the petitioner and his family has
been working in the same place since more tan 20 years or
C. Issue a writ, in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondent nos. respondent no 1, 2, 3 and 4 to provide
alternate shop to continue his business and earn his livelihood."
7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits
that Street Vendors Act, 2014 does not have any
application in the present case, as petitioners
were running meat business within industrial
estate, which is not notified as municipality. It is
further contended that petitioners had illegally
constructed temporary sheds on roadside for
running their meat business; since temporary
structure raised by petitioner were encroaching
upon roadside land, therefore they were rightly
demolished.
8. This Court do not find any reason to
interfere in the matter. No one has a vested right
to raise construction over public/roadside land.
9. Having regard to facts of the case, writ
petitions are disposed of with liberty to
petitioners to approach the competent authority,
seeking rehabilitation. If petitioners make
2025:UHC:10632
representation within three weeks from today,
the competent authority shall look into their
request and pass appropriate order, as per law
within six months thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
28.11.2025
Mahinder
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43
D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.11.28 17:55:25 +05'30'
