2025:UHC:10702 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1653/2023 With WPMS/1658/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. No representation for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rahul Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in both the 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. 1653 of 2023 (MS) alone are being discussed and considered. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. According to petitioners, they are entitled to protection under Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations) Act, 2014 (Act No. 7 of 2014). 7. By means of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1653 of 2023, 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 2025:UHC:10702 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.” 8. 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. 9. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. No one has a vested right to raise construction over public/roadside land. 10. 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 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.) 01.12.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d 1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4 610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.12.01 04:19:05 -08'00'