1 2025:CGHC:35526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1119 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Dhiwar S/o Raju Dhiwar Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Shitla Mandir, H. No. 1399 Ward No. 16 Ramkund, Tehsil And District Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Manohar Sahu S/o Ramji Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Makan No. 181, Ward No. 9, Post- Gadamor, Mohtara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Vishwanath Dewangan S/o Tulsi Ram Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o 164, Ward No. 08, Shastri Chowk, Kesla, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Shri Vishwadeep Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 23-07-2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present contempt petition against the willful violation of the order dated 08-02-2024, passed in W.P.C. No. 757/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with certain directions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are street vendors. The writ petition filed by them was disposed of with the direction to grant the vending licence to the petitioners and to earmark the place for them under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vendors) Act, 2014, and the petitioners were permitted to carry out their business, but not on the road. The order dated 08-02-2024 was brought into knowledge of the respondent authorities, but till date, the order has not been complied with, which is the wilful Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.15 13:28:10 +0530 2 violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 757/2024, and contempt proceedings may be started against them. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of the order under contempt, it transpires that the writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of with certain directions. Para 3 of the order under contempt is relevant to this juncture, which is as under:- “3. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Bajpai and Mr. Agrawal, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the municipal authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners for the grant of vending license. The authorities are also directed to earmark a place for the petitioners strictly in accordance with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vendors) Act, 2014. In the meantime, the petitioners are permitted to carry out their business activity but they shall not continue such business on the road. It is made clear that if it is found that the petitioners are carrying out such business activity on the road, the municipal authorities are at liberty to take strict action in accordance with law.” 5. Though by the order under contempt, the municipal authorities were directed to grant the vending license to the petitioners, the petitioners have failed to produce any documents showing that they have completed the formalities of the grant of license and made their application for the same, paid the requisite fee and completed the other process. Earmarking of the place for the petitioners would depend upon their application for the grant of a license, as they are restricted from doing their business on the road. Liberty was also given to the municipal authorities to take necessary action against the street vendors if they would be found carrying out their business activities on the road. In the present case, the petitioners made their representation on 13-06-2025, whereas the order under contempt was passed on 08-02-2024. What transpires in between that period, there is no pleading or document. Whether the petitioner is not permitted to carry out his business, whether any punitive action has been taken against them, whether they applied for the grant of the license in accordance with the law, all these facts are not there in the petition. 3 6. I do not find any scope for the issuance of the notice for contempt of Court or wilful violation of the order under contempt. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil