Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2371-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 73428 of 2011 Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Rathore Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyus Sinha,Umesh Narain Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,Vivek Varma Connected with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 73412 of 2011 Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Rathore Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyus Sinha,Umesh Narian Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,Vivek Varma and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 73417 of 2011 Petitioner :- Ram Singh Rathore Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar,Piyus Sinha,Piyush Sinha,Umesh Narain Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,Vivek Varma and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 73419 of 2011 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Rathore Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar,Piyus Sinha,Piyush Sinha,Umesh Narian Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,Vivek Varma and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 73421 of 2011 Petitioner :- Ganga Sagar Rathore Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyus Sinha,Umesh Narain Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,Vivek Varma and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 73423 of 2011 Petitioner :- Rajendra Poddar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyus Sinha,Umesh Narian Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,Vivek Varma and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 73426 of 2011 Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Rathore Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 73431 of 2011 Petitioner :- Mewa Lal Rathore Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar,Piyus Sinha,Piyush Sinha,Umesh Narain Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,Vivek Varma Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 2. The leading writ petition No. 73428 of 2011 has been filed seeking the following reliefs: "(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.11 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.1); (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to demolish the shop of the petitioner in the premises of Nai Dal Mandi area being premises no.52/44, New Dal Mandi, Kanpur; (c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize/allot the shop in dispute in favour of the petitioner." 3. From the record, it appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of a writ petition bearing Writ - C No.43465 of 2010, which came to be disposed of by means of an order dated 28.07.2010 directing the respondent no.2, therein to decide the representation of the petitioner and till the representation is decided, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. 4. By the impugned order of 30.11.2011, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. 5. By means of that representation, the petitioner had sought the regularization of the tenancy of his shop under the "National Fery Policy". 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition has been carrying on his livelihood from his shop, which measures 2 meters x 3 meters and has been paying tehbazari in respect thereof since more than 40 years and that shop never caused any obstruction or hindrance in the movement of traffic as it was neither on the footpath nor on the road. Therefore, there was no occasion to proceed for demolition of the shop of the petitioner. 7. It is stated that on the land where the shop of the petitioner is located, there are a total of 28 shops therein. The allotment in favour of the petitioner was of open land but a shed had been constructed thereon by the petitioner. It is therefore, stated that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner is wholly uncalled for and is liable to be set aside. 8. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that after taking into account the representation moved by the petitioner, it was found by the Municipal Commissioner in the impugned order that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the property of the Nagar Nigam. 9. It is stated in the order that all the mandis in the city have been shifted outside the city and in such a situation it is not appropriate for the petitioner to continue his profession at the present site. As per the ferry policy, the intention is that the traffic should not be obstructed. There is no provision for regularization of sites like that of the petitioner. Therefore, under the fery policy, his tenancy cannot be regularized. 10. It was further observed that the petitioner is licencee of the Mandi Samiti and, therefore, he should carry on his business at the specified mandi area. Accordingly, the representation was dismissed. 11. No such illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Municipal Commissioner that would entail interference in this writ petition. 12. Moreover, in view of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, in case the petitioner claims to be a street vendor, it is for him to seek benefit of the Act of 2014 that provides for regulation of street vending and other allied provisions. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. 14. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the connected petitions are identical to the present petition. Hence the connected petitions too are dismissed in terms of this order. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Mayank Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad