HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33279 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for State respondent and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, earned counsel for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short "Authority"). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent Noida Authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner and provide them to suitable and adequate atmosphere for running the petitioner's shop and allowing them to run their shops as per the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the redressal grievance committee without any disturbance and harassment in the light of the (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to take appropriate necessary enquiry regarding to the verification the actual vendors running their shop in the area as per the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the redressal grievance committee and also take disciplinary and strict action against unauthorized street vendors running their shop on behalf the actual vendors." 3. This much is reflected from the record that the petitioner has been allotted Vending Zone v22 at Work Circle 1 of an area 2x2 mtr. (4 sq. mtr.). The same is reflected from the allotment letter dated 18.7.2023. In the instant petition, the petitioner is alleging certain encroachment in some other vending zones. Due to this encroachment, there is disturbance and hindrance to the authorized street vendors. It is contended that in this regard the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh Rajesh Tiwari (Divyang) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner has made several representations to the authority concerned but no action has been taken as yet. 4. Considering the factual situation, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. However, it is expected that in case the petitioner is working in his own vending zone and there is any obstruction, definitely he would be at liberty to press his relief before the competent authority. The petitioner is also expected to do the business activity only in the vending zone, which has been allotted to him. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 22, 2025 SP/ WRIC No. 33279 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad