1 0APHC010360962019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17203/2019 Between: 1. SHAIK JALEEL BABU,, S/O. GOUSE MABU, MUSLIM, AGED 42 YEARS, (FRUITS BUSINESS). 2. A.YEDUKONDALU,, S/O. ANJANEYULU, HINDU, AGED 46 YEARS, (BARBHAR SHOP). 3. A.MASTHAN,, S/O. ANJANEYULU, HINDU, AGED 5O YEARS, (BHARBAR SHOP). 4. A.RAMULU,, S/O. PULLAIAH, HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, (BHARBAR SHOP). 5. SHAIK AKTHAR,, W/O. JANI BASHA, MUSLIM, AGED 38 YEARS (CHICKEN PAKODI SHOP). 6. SUNDARAGIRI LATHU BASHA,, S/O. IBRAHEEM, MUSLIM, AGED 36 YEARS (BHEEDI SHOP). 7. SHAIK ABDUL SATTAR,, S/O. JANI MIYA, MUSLIM, AGED 50 YEARS, (POWER SPARE SHOP) 8. PAGALA VENKAIAH,, S/O. SUBBAIAH, HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS, (PHOTO STUDIO). 9. DURGI RAMESH,, S/O. KRISHNA RAO, HINDU, AGED 29 YEARS, (FOOT WEAR SHOP). 10. SHAIK NAGUL MEERA,, S/O. MOHAMMAD SAIDA, MUSLIM, AGED 42 YEARS, (CLOTH STORE). 11. SHAIK GANI,, S/O. GHOUSE MABU, MUSLIM, AGED 42 YEARS, (FRUIT SHOP). 12. SHAIK MASTAN VALI,, S/O. SHAIK JANI, HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, (FRUIT BUNK). 13. DURGI RAMA RAO,, S/O. KRISHNA RAO, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, (T.V. REPAIR BUNK). 2 14. SHAIK ABDUL JALEEL,, S/O. MADARSHA, MUSLIM, AGED 55 YEARS, (MEDICAL SHOP). 15. KHELAM PRAKASHA RAO,, S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS (COFFEE STALL). (ALL ARE R/O. GURAJALA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE GURAZALA GRAMPANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GURAZALA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 4. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD AND BUILDINGS, MACHARLA, GUNTUR DIST. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GURAZALA POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. VICTORIA MEMORIAL ANANDA SAMAJAM, GURAZALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY P.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, GURAZALA, GUNTU- DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of any of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners running of petty vending business in their shops/push carts situated on the road margin drainage of Gurajala - Karampudi Road adjoining the Victoria Memorial Ananda Samajam, Gurazala town and Mandal, Guntur District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently restrain them from interfering in any way with the petitioners petty vending business. 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to harass/interfere/evict in the petitioners petty vending/street vending business adjoining the road margin drainage and the Victoria Memorial Ananda Samajam, Gurazala village and Mandal, Guntur District pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 3. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS (AP) 4. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) 5. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.17203 of 2019 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: <..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of any of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners running of petty vending business in their shops/push carts situated on the road margin drainage of Gurajala - Karampudi Road adjoining the Victoria Memorial Ananda Samajam, Gurazala town and Mandal, Guntur District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently restrain them from interfering in any way with the petitioners petty vending business and pass...= 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners herein is that they are eking out their livelihood by carrying on petty business adjoining the 8th respondent building within the R&B road margin and they have been conducting this business continuously since long time. While so, with the help of respondent Nos.6 and 7, at the instance of the 8th respondent, respondent Nos.2 to 5 got evicted the petitioners 5 and they were deprived from their livelihood, which is contrary to the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. As per the object of the said Act, the government or managing committee of every town and city shall provide a notified area for street vending vendors like the petitioners. Ignoring the object of the Act, without providing or notifying any particular place for street vending as contemplated under the provisions of the Act 2014, the respondents evicted the petitioners and deprived the livelihood of the petitioners, which is contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has submitted written instructions dated 29.08.2025, wherein it is stated that the pending writ petition, the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat was upgraded to Nagar Panchayat vide G.O.Ms.No.247, dated 25.01.2020, by merging Gurazala Gram Panchayat as well as Jangamaheswarapuram Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners should be renewed against the Gurazala Nagar Panchayat, which was newly constituted. She further submits that the Act, 2014 is not at all applicable to the 2nd respondent herein, 6 which is a Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners herein is liable to be rejected. However, the petitioners are at liberty to prosecute their rights, as they have already filed a suit in O.S.No.240 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, on perusal of the material on record and upon the instructions submitted by the respondent Nos.1 to 5, dated 29.08.2025 that the claim of the petitioners in the writ petition seeking for interfering with the petitioners petty vending businesses like shops and push carts situated in the road margin of the 2nd respondent, without following due process of law and without implementing the scheme under the Act, 2014 is not sustainable in law. At the time of filing the writ petition, the 2nd respondent is only a Gram Panchayat and Act, 2014, which is applicable only to the towns and cities, did not apply to the 2nd respondent. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent was notified as a Nagar Panchayat on 25.01.2020. 7 6. As per Section 2(c) of the Act, 2014, a local authority includes a Nagar Panchayat. Therefore, in view of the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, which is comes under the jurisdiction of the Act, 2014. The relevant provision under the Act reads as follows: ...Section 2(c): <Local authority= means a Municipal Corporation or a Municipal Council or a Nagar Panchayat, by whatever name called, or the Cantonment Board, or as the case may be, a civil area committee appointed under section 47 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (41 of 2006) or such other body entitled to function as a local authority in any city or town to provide civic services and regulate street vending and includes the <planning authority= which regulates the land use in that city or town;= 7. In view of the classification of the 2nd respondent as a Nagar Panchayat, the claim of the petitioners for providing alternative notified area for their petty vending business can be considered by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Act, 2014. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and proceed further and notify an area for petty vending business, as claimed by the petitioners, by following the procedure 8 as contemplated under the scheme of the Act, 2014, as early as possible. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall not order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 30.08.2025 SR 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.17203 of 2019 Date: 30.08.2025 SR