APHC010128702015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 11338/2015 Between: 1. P.VENKATA RAO,& 44, S/O. VENKATARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SHOP NO.1, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. K.LAVANYA,, D/O. LATE VENKATANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SHOP NO.3, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. P.GUII NAVAZ KHAN,, S/O. SALEEM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NO.4, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. DOKI DHAYAMANI,, W/O. RAJABABU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SHOP NO.5, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. P.JAYALAKSHMI,, W/O. LATE POTNURI SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SHOP NO.6, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 6. P.SAVITHRI,, W/O. LATE VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SHOP NO.7, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 7. SHAIK MABOOBI,, W/O. LATE KHAJAVALI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SHOP NO.8, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 8. V.ANANTHA MANIKANTA,, S/O. V. GOVINDARAO, AGED ABOUT 20 2 YEARS, SHOP NO.9, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 9. SHAIK SABIRA,, W/O. SHAIK BABJANI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SHOP NO.10, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 10. P. RAMANAMMA,, W/O. LATE DILNAVAZ KHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SHOP NO.11, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 11. MOGAL MOHAMMED RAHAMTULLA BAIG,, S/O. SALAMTULLA BAIG, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SHOP NO.12, LENIN CENTRE VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 12. SHAIK DADA VALI,, S/O. SHAIK MEERA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SHOP NO.13, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 13. D.APPALA REDDY,, S/O. D. PITCHIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SHOP NO.14, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 14. REDDY VEERA VENKATA SURESH,, S/O. REDDY GURU LINGAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SHOP NO.15, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 15. YARRANAGU BRAHMAREDDY,, S/O. LATE Y. MUSALAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SHOP NO.16, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 16. BHAVIREDDY PRABHU KUMAR,, S/O. SURI BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SHOP NO.17, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 17. PULIGUJJU KRISHNARAO,, S/O. P. PURNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SHOP NO.18, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 18. VUNNA VASUDEVA RAO,, S/O. VUNNA ANNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SHOP NO.19, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3 19. B.VIJAYALAKSHRNI,, W/O. VARADARAJULU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SHOP NO.20, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 20. P. DURGAMBA,, W/O. KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SHOP NO.21, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 21. SHAIK JIILANI,, S/O. ABDUL AJEEJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SHOP NO.22, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 22. S. SOMAIAH,, S/O. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SHOP NO.23, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 23. SHAIK MEERAVALLI,, S/O. SHAREEF, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NO.24, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 24. S.NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SHOP NO.25, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 25. P. ASHOK,, S/O. APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SHOP NO.26, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 26. S. VIJAYA,, W/O. LATE VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SHOP NO.27, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 27. K. SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SHOP NO.28, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 28. N. CHIRANJEEVI,, S/O.KANTHARAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SHOP NO.29, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 29. P. CHINNA MEERAVALLI,, S/O. SUBHANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SHOP NO.30, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 30. SHAIK NAGOOR,, S/O. LATE ALLA BHAKSHU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SHOP NO.31, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 31. SHAIK RANGAVALLI,, S/O. PAKEER SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SHOP NO.32, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4 32. M.M. SALAMTHULLAH BAIG,, S/O. ASMATHULLAH BAIG, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SHOP NO.33, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 33. SHAIK ILLAHI,, S/O. SUBHANI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SHOP NO.34, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 34. P. SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. P. VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SHOP NO.35, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 35. L. UMA MAHESWARA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SHOP NO.36, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 36. P. APPARAO,, S/O. NEELAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SHOP NO.37, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 37. P. DURGA PRASAD,, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, SHOP NO.38, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 38. V. GOVINDA RAO,, S/O. APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NO.39, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 39. P. RAMA RAO,, S/O. NEELAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NO.40, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 40. M.M. SAJJAUTHULLAH BAIG,, S/O. ASMATHULLAH BAIG, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NO.41, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 41. A. SRINIVASARAO,, S/O. VISHNUVARDHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SHOP NO.42, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 42. M.M. SHAFFIULLAH BAIG,, S/O. SALLAMTHULLAH BAIG, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SHOP NO.43, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 43. SHAIK SHAREEF,, S/O. MEERASAHEB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SHOP NO.44, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5 44. M. SUBBA RAO,, S/O. KONAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SHOP NO.45, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 45. M. RAJASEKHAR,, S/O. SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SHOP NO.46, LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF AP PRL SCY M A D HYD 4, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. VIJAYAWADA MUNCIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPRINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, KRISHNA CENTRAL DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, TOWN WORKS SECTION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA 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 toto issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notices bearing No.123-T, dated 27-3-2015 to the writ petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from our shops situated on the bank of Rivas canal, Lenin Center, NTS No.1015 of Vijayawada City IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 14968 OF 2015 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 evict the petitioners from her shops bearing shop 6 No.1 to 46 situated on the bank of Rivas canal, Lenin Center, NTS No.1015 of Vijayawada City pending disposal of the Writ Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP 495 OF 2016 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 vacate the interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No.14968 of 2015 in W.P.No.11338/2015 dt: 01.04.2015 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 vacate the interim order passed on 21-04-2015 in WP.MP.No. 14968 of 2015 in W.P.No 11338 of 2015 and consequentially dismiss the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to order implead petition impleading the petitioner as 6th respondent in the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T S VENKATARAMANA 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) 3. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC 4. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 7 ORDER: The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notices bearing No.123-T, dated 27-3-2015 to the writ petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from our shops situated on the bank of Rivas canal, Lenin Center, NTS No.1015 of Vijayawada City,….” 2. The petitioners herein are vendors of fancy and readymade cloths who erected their shops on the embankment of Rivas Canal, NTS No.1015, belonging to the Irrigation Department, by obtaining electricity connections from the concerned department, and they are also paying taxes to the Municipal Corporation. 3. While things stood thus, the 5th respondent herein issued a notice dated 27.03.2015 bearing Notice No.123-T to the petitioners directing them to vacate the premises occupied by them, failing which action would be taken against them. Challenging the notice dated 27.03.2015, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the said notice was issued by the 5th respondent without taking into consideration the statutory provisions governing the subject, viz., the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 7 of 2014, dated 04.03.2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that as per Section 2(1) of the said Act, which defines “street vendor,” Section 2(k) defines “stationary 8 vendor,” and Section 2(n) of the Act defines “vending zone.” The petitioners are entitled to the benefits under the Act and further submitted that, instead of considering the petitioners’ possession over the subject land, the 5th respondent, without having any jurisdiction, issued the impugned notice. 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 24.12.2015, this Court passed the following interim order: “Status-Quo existing as on today shall be maintained.” 6. The respondent Nos.2 and 5 filed a detailed counter. The relevant paragraphs of the counter filed by the respondent No.5 are extracted herein as under: “In reply to Para No.4 of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the contention of the petitioner's said notice directing us to vacate the premises is being challenged in the writ petition as the same is without jurisdiction and without any authority of law is absolutely false and denied. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner's have no right to continue in the subject property as the same belongs to Irrigation Department. The Department has the right to take back the land in the best interest of public by following due process of law. Further, it is submitted that the statutory provisions stipulated in The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, 7 of 2014, dt.4-3-2014 is not applicable to the subject property (i.e. N.T.S.No. 1015 Ryves Canal bund) as it is a water body and encroachments on water body are clearly objectionable. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that Hon'ble AP Lokayukta, Hyderabad has passed orders on 29-11-2011 in Complaint No.531/2008 & 851/2010/B1 directing the District Collector, Krishna to see that "all canal bunds encroachments are evicted except the case which are covered by the Hon'ble High Court orders. Even with the reference to the orders obtained from the Hon'ble High Court, the Dist. Collector, Krishna is also directed to instruct the concerned officer to file necessary papers before the Hon'ble High Court and get the interim orders vacated since encroachments on canal bunds are clearly objectionable and cannot be allowed to be continued. The Dist. Collector is also directed to issue necessary orders for rehabilitation with reference to the eligible encroachers who are still left and continuing on the canal bund as encroachers and submit a report to this institution by the next date of hearing" 6. In reply to Para No. 5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that, the contents in the para no.5 are denied. It is respectfully submitted that under sec.2(1) of the said act "Street Vendor" means a person engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares, food items or merchandise of everyday use or offering services to te general public, in a street lane, side walk, foothpath, pavement, public park or any other public place or private area from a temporary built-up structure or by moving from a place to place and includes hawker. peddler, squatter and all other synonymous terms which may be local c region specific. It is clear from the above submission that the "Street Vendor" doesn't come under the lands situated on the water bodies. Further, it is submitted that the provisions contained in The 9 Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act,7 of 2014, dt-4-3-2014 are not applicable, irrelevant and not tenable. Hence, it is required to be rejected forthwith. 7. In reply to Para No 6,7 & 8 of the affidavit, it is submitted that, the Contents in the para are denied. It is respectfully submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the impugned notice issued is without jurisdiction and without following The Act, the respondents have no statutory power to evict us is absolutely false and incorrect. In this regard it is submitted that the petitioners have no legal right over the schedule property and absolutely it is an encroachment. Further, it is submitted that "the Owner of the land is the Irrigation Department; the department has the right to take back the subject property by following the due process of law". It is reiterated that the provisions contained in The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, 7 of 2014, dt.4-3-2014 is not applicable to the lands situated on the water bodies. Hence, the said Act is not tenable and is required to be rejected forthwith. 8. In reply to Para No.9 of the affidavit, it is submitted that, the Contents the para are denied. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners were continuing in the subject property illegally from the last two decades. They cannot claim the leasehold rights as their status of occupation is illegal and purely it is an encroachment. The said property is required by the department in the behest of public for Modernization and Beautification of ryves canal bund and also to strengthen the canal bunds, to improve the canal efficiency, to maintain hygienic condition and health in the city. Further it is submitted that the Hon'ble A.P. Lokayukta, Hyderabad has passed orders on 29-11-2011 in Complaint No.531/2008 & 851/2010/B1 directing the District Collector, Krishna to see that "all canal bunds encroachments are evicted except the case which are covered by the Hon'ble High Court orders. Even with the reference to the orders obtained from the Hon'ble High Court, the Dist. Collector, Krishna is also directed to instruct the concerned officer to file necessary papers before the Hon'ble High Court and get the interim orders vacated since encroachments on canal bunds are clearly objectionable and cannot be allowed to be continued. The Dist. Collector is also directed to issue necessary orders for rehabilitation with reference to the eligible encroachers who are still left and continuing on the canal bund as encroachers and submit a report to this institution by the next date of hearing". It is clear from the above submission that the encroachments on canal bunds clearly objectionable and are eligible for eviction. The eviction process may be carried out by taking appropriate steps by following due process of law. In view of the above facts and circumstances explained above, there is no merit for filing writ petition, since the above land is not leased out to the petitioner's and the canal bund are required by this department for the reasons i.e., to strengthen the canal bunds, to improve the canal efficiency, to maintain the hygienic condition and health in the city and keeping in view of the of the Government policy taken vide G.O.Ms.No.101 I&CAD (PW- LA-1) Dept. dt. 03-06-2005 and orders dated 19-11-2011 of Hon'ble A.P. Lokayukta, Hyderabad in Complaint No.531/2008 & 851/2010/B1.” 7. For ready reference, Section 2(k) and Section 2(n) of the act are extracted herein below: Section 2(k) – “Stationary vendor” “stationary vendor” means a street vendor who carries on vending activities from a fixed location; 2(n) – “Vending zone” “vending zone” means an area or a place or a location designated as such by the local authority for the specific use by street vendors for vending activities; 8. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents that, in 10 pursuance of the interim orders, the petitioners are in possession of the subject shops even as on today. 9. Under similar circumstances, in “R. Prashanti and Ors. Vs. State of A.P.1” the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State Of Andhra Pradesh, while placing reliance upon the judgment in “Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and another v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and others2” and Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short, Act 7 of 2014), held as follows: “The Act 7 of 2014 vests substantive right in the street vendors and their right to carry on street vending business and their licences cannot be taken away without following due process as mandated by Act 7 of 2014. In the instant case, counter affidavit is silent on the steps taken by the respondent corporation in compliance of the mandate issued by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union case and the Act 7 of 2014. Thus, unless and until that exercise is carried out, the petitioners cannot be thrown out from their place of street vending. ………… However, petitions have to be mindful that they are encroaching upon the footpaths. Though Act 7 of 2014 vests substantive right in them to carry out vending operations from the place where they have been doing business till appropriate policy is evolved and the vending zones are identified by the respondent corporation, but petitioners cannot convert vending mobile units into permanent establishments. They cannot put up permanent structures and cannot provide seating arrangements to the customers blocking the footpaths. The footpaths are meant for pedestrians and they have a right to use them. Petitioners shall ensure that they do not occupy the footpaths by blocking the right of way of pedestrians. They shall not put up any permanent structures and shall not make seating arrangements blocking the footpaths. It is also the responsibility of the petitioners to maintain hygienic conditions. If the petitioners violate any of these conditions, it is open to the respondent corporation to take appropriate action as warranted by law by following due process of law and observing principles of opportunity of hearing.” 1 2015 (6) ALD 400 2 (2014) 1 SCC 490 11 10. Following the said judgment, the impugned notice dated 27.03.2015 is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notice dated 27.03.2015. However, the petitioners are directed to adhere to the guidelines formulated in “R. Prashanti and Ors. vs. State of A.P.” (referred supra). Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 16.12.2025 MH 12 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 23 WRIT PETITION NO: 11338/2015 Date: 16.12.2025 MH