Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by street vendors seeking quashing of the Town Vending Committee’s (‘the Committee’) meeting agenda concerning cancellation of apposite licenses, cancelling the vendors’ licenses, show-cause notices directing depositing of pending dues, and, two public notices for clearance of pending dues, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur* and Vikas Suri., JJ., dismissed the petition holding that the initiation of the process of cancelling licenses was not illegal as the Committee had validly delegated the relevant administrative functions to the Additional/Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (‘the Commissioner’). The Court also held that since the show cause notice merged into the final order of the Committee, the vendors had the remedy to file a statutory appeal against it and directed them to do so before the statutory appellate authority concerned. In the meantime, the Court stayed the license cancellation order.
Background
The petitioners were registered as street vendors under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (‘Street Vendors Act’) and Union Territory of Chandigarh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending), Rules 2015 (‘the Rules’). They were given survey IDs and provisional certificates for their vending sites, permitting them to work in Sector-19, Chandigarh.
It was contended that, subsequently, the vendors were shifted from Sector 19 to other remote Sectors where they could not earn their livelihood due to the non-availability of customers. They submitted representations regarding their relocation/dislocation and sought permission to work in Sector 19, however, no action was taken.
Thereafter, the Commissioner issued a public notice stating that the Municipal Corporation would conduct a draw of lots to allot sites to those vendors who had not been allotted any site, and, requested them to clear their dues. It also provided a last opportunity for all the defaulting vendors to deposit the outstanding dues, so that, their names could be considered for the draw of lots. The Committee delegated its powers to the Commissioner, to decide the cancellation of apposite licenses. The Commissioner issued the impugned show cause notices to the vendors under Section 10 of the Street Vendors Act, directing them to deposit their outstanding dues. Aggrieved, they moved an application against the same.
Vide another public notice, all the defaulting street vendors were granted a last opportunity to clear their dues. The vendors moved another application requesting the Commissioner to hear them regarding the unpaid dues and their dislocation. However, the Commissioner did not consider their pleas and proceeded to cancel their vending certificates/licences.
Aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court rejected the contention that since the Commissioner initiated the cancellation process, the final order of cancellation passed by the Committee was illegal. The Court noted that Section 10 of the Street Vendors Act and Rule 12 of the Rules empowered the Committee to cancel the street vending licences. The Court held that since the Commissioner, an administrative officer, was validly delegated the relevant administrative functions, the process of licence cancellation initiated by him was not illegal. Accordingly, the process of cancelling licences merged into the valid exercise of the power bestowed upon the Committee, and the action did not suffer from any illegality.
Regarding the grievance of dislocation of the vendors, the Court stated that since the show cause notice merged into the final order of the Committee, they had the remedy to file a statutory appeal against it. Thus, the Court held that all the grievances raised in the present petition could be raised before the statutory appellate authority concerned.
Thus, the Court upheld the impugned notice and directed the vendors to challenge the impugned notices through a statutory appeal against the same before the appellate authority within two weeks. The Court stated that if the appeal was time-barred on an application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, along with the statutory appeal, the appellate authority shall make a valid speaking order. Subsequently, the said statutory appeal shall be registered and decided on merits by the appellate authority within two months.
In the meantime, the Court stayed the impugned order of cancellation, and if an application was filed seeking similar relief against the order before the Appellate Authority, the same was directed to be lawfully decided within two weeks from the date of filing of the said application.
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
[Puneet Sharma v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, CWP No. 26405 of 2024 (O&M), decided on 25-02-2025]
*Authored by Justice Sureshwar Thakur
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Jasbir Singh
For the respondent: Sanjiv Ghai
