( 2026:HHC:33862 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8741/2025 Decided on: 12.08.2026 Bhanu Partap Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioners, 24 in number, have filed the present writ petition claiming that they their predecessors have been earning their livelihood through street vending for more than 30 years near Bus Stop Saproon and Valley Side Saproon in District Solan, H.P., which are designated vending zones. They are engaged in petty businesses such as the sale of fruits, vegetables, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) fast food, tea, roasted corn (‘makki’), groundnuts and other eatables. Their grievance is against the action of respondent No. 3– Municipal Corporation, Solan, in de-notifying these vending zones, from where they have been earning their livelihood. 2. It is not in dispute that the areas in question, i.e. Bus Stop Saproon and Valley Side Saproon, formed part of Gram Panchayat, Saproon till 27.10.2020. Upon formation of Municipal Corporation, Solan on 28.10.2020, these areas came within its jurisdiction. On 11.10.2023, Municipal Corporation, Solan notified ten vending zones. ‘Saproon near Bus Stop’ was designated as Zone No.4 and ‘Valley Side, Saproon’ as Zone No.5. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had undertaken the widening of the Solan–Parwanoo National Highway. This development work was being monitored in CWPIL No. 249 of 2017. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Municipal Corporation, Solan (respondent No.3) placed on record order dated 21.03.2024 passed in the said petition. The said order inter-alia records concerns expressed by the NHAI regarding bottlenecks on the National Highway causing obstruction to the free flow of vehicular traffic and its request to issue appropriate directions to the concerned authorities for removal of encroachments & illegal parking from the National Highway so that the service road/carriageway could be used for its intended purpose and 3 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) accidents could be avoided. Taking note of these concerns, the following directions were issued in the said order (relevant extracts only): - “3. We deem it appropriate to direct Deputy Commissioner as well as Superintendent of Police, Solan, to render all the necessary assistance to the NHAI so as to enable it to remove all illegal parking and the NHAI shall be at liberty to remove all encroachments from NH land without getting any formal demarcation as it is more than settled that it is for the occupant(s) to prove his lawful possession and not otherwise and more over, these encroachments and illegal parking have come up on the NHAI land, which otherwise has already been demarcated. Ordered accordingly. 4. It is also averred that many vehicles are seen parked idly on NH service road, particularly at Dharampur, Anji, Rabon, near Subatoo road etc. causing hindrance in the vehicular movement and street vendors and also encroaching upon the NH land on the Parwanoo-Solan section under the M.C. limit and even the respondent-NHAI has also requested the Municipal Commissioner, Solan, to issue suitable directions to the respective authorities to remove such unauthorized parking/encroachments. 5. In the given facts and circumstances, we also direct the Municipal Commissioner, Solan, to remove all hindrances be it by way of encroachment, idle parking or street vendors squatting on the NH land. The police authorities shall also provide all necessary assistance to the Municipal Commissioner, Solan. Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Solan submits that in view of the directions issued in para 5 of the above-extracted order, respondent-Municipal Corporation, Solan, in the meeting of the Town Vending Committee 4 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) convened on 13.08.2024, de-notified Zone Nos. 4 and 5; Furthermore, there was already a proposal pending with respondent-Municipal Corporation, Solan for construction of Shaheed Samarak, Public Toilet and a Park at a place falling under Zone Nos. 4 and 5; Two new vending zones have been created through Town Vending Committee for relocation of registered street vendors; These are only 139 registered ‘redi’ licence holders; Not all the petitioners are registered ‘redi’ licence holders; At present a total of 24 vending spaces are lying vacant in different places where petitioners can be accommodated in case of their applying. De- notification of Zone Nos. 4 and 5 has been assailed by the petitioners. The substantive reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition are as under: - “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately carry out the survey as per the requirement of Section 3 of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and Section 3 & 4 of Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Scheme, 2016 and till the time the said survey is not conducted the respondents may be directed to relocate the petitioners at their original place of street vending i.e. Vending Zone No. 4 & 5. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to issue writ of certiorari quashing impugned minutes of meeting dated 13.08.2024, whereby vide Agenda No. 1/2024 Vending Zone No. 4 & 5 had been ordered be de-notified in total contravention of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, Scheme & Rules. 5 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2025 to Construct vending zone as per plans with basic Amenities such as drinking water, MSWM, Shelter, storage space etc.” 3. Both sides have placed reliance upon The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (the Act in short), Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2016 (the Scheme in short) as also Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2016 (the Rules in short), in support of their respective stand. 3(i) In terms of Section 21 of the Act, First Schedule has been incorporated in the Act with the heading ‘Plan for Street Vending’. This schedule is as under: - “(1) The plan for street vending shall,— (a) ensure that all existing street vendors identified in the survey, subject to a norm conforming to two and half per cent. of the population of the ward, zone, town or city, as the case may be, are accommodated in the plan for street vending; (b) ensure the right of commuters to move freely and use the roads without any impediment; (c) ensure that the provision of space or area for street vending is reasonable and consistent with existing natural markets; (d) take into account the civic facilities for appropriate use of identified spaces or areas as vending zones; 6 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) (e) promote convenient, efficient and cost effective distribution of goods and provision of services; (f) such other matters as may be specified in the scheme to give effect to the plan for street vending. (2) The plan for street vending shall contain all of the following matters, namely:— (a) determination of spatial planning norms for street vending; (b) earmarking of space or area for vending zones; (c) determination of vending zones as restriction-free- vending zones, restricted vending zones and no-vending zones; (d) making of spatial plans conducive and adequate for the prevalent number of street vendors in that city or town and also for the future growth, by adopting such norms as may be necessary; (e) consequential changes needed in the existing master plan, development plan, zonal plan, layout plan and any other plan for accommodating street vendors in the designated vending zones. (3) Declaration of no-vending zone shall be carried out by the plan for street vending, subject to the following principles, namely:— (a) any existing market, or a natural market as identified under the survey shall not be declared as a no-vending zone; (b) declaration of no-vending zone shall be done in a manner which displaces the minimum percentage of street vendors; c) overcrowding of any place shall not be a basis for declaring any area as a no-vending zone provided that restrictions may be placed on issuing certificate of vending in such areas to persons not identified as street vendors in the survey; (d) sanitary concerns shall not be the basis for declaring any area as a no-vending zone unless such concerns can be solely attributed to street vendors and cannot be resolved through appropriate civic action by the local authority; 7 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) (e) till such time as the survey has not been carried out and the plan for street vending has not been formulated, no zone shall be declared as a no-vending zone.” It has been contended for the petitioners that de- notification of Vending Zones No. 4 and 5 was in contravention of sub-clause (3) of the First Schedule. Clause (a) of sub-clause (3) of the First Schedule provides that an existing market or a natural market identified during the survey shall not be declared a no- vending zone. Following Clause 14 of the Scheme was also highlighted: - “14. Manner of relocating street vendor in case of public purpose-When any question arises relating to public purpose, the same shall be decided in consultation with the Town Vending Committee, keeping in view the following points:- (1) The Town Vending Committee recommendation/consent is mandatory, (ii) The street vendor shall be adjusted in the same locality/area for vending: (iii) During construction/development, the street vendor(s) may be adjusted in a nearby place temporarily; and (iv) After the completion of development work, the displaced street vendor(s) may be given space for vending in the original place.’ Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in case the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Solan, desired to carry out any public purpose in the instant case, i.e. four-laning of the existing road as projected, then during the 8 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) construction/development of such project, the street vendors/petitioners were to be temporarily adjusted in a nearby area. However, after completion of the work, the displaced street vendors were to be provided space for vending at their original place, i.e. Vending Zone Nos. 4 and 5. The four-laning work at the site has since been completed. The petitioners were displaced from Vending Zone Nos. 4 and 5 during the currency of the work, but have not been brought back to their original place, as the respondent-Corporation, in the interregnum, has illegally de-notified the aforesaid vending zones. 3(ii) The above submission has been countered by learned counsel for the respondents-corporation, highlighting section 18 of the Act, that falls under Chapter IV with the heading ‘Relocation and Eviction of Street Vendors’. The said provision reads as under: - “CHAPTER IV RELOCATION AND EVICTION OF STREET VENDORS 18.(1) The local authority may, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, declare a zone or part of it to be a no- vending zone for any public purpose and relocate the street vendors vending in that area, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme. (2) The local authority shall evict such street vendor whose certificate of vending has been cancelled under section 10 or who does not have a certificate of vending and vends without such certificate, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme. (3) No street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority from the place specified in the certificate of vending 9 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) unless he has been given thirty days’ notice for the same in such manner as may be specified in the scheme. (4) A street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority physically in such manner as may be specified in the scheme only after he had failed to vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice. (5) Every street vendor who fails to relocate or vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice, shall be liable to pay for every day of such default, a penalty which may extend up to two hundred and fifty rupees, as may be determined by the local authority, but shall not be more than the value of goods seized.” Learned counsel submitted that respondent-Municipal Corporation is vested with the power to declare a zone, or any part thereof, as a no-vending zone for any public purpose and to relocate the street vendors vending in that area in such a manner as may be specified in the Scheme, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee. Section 29 of the Act was also pressed into service to contend that the Act does not confer upon street vendors any temporary, permanent, or perpetual right to carry on vending activities in the vending zones allotted to them or at any place where they carry on their vending activities. The said section reads as under: - “29. (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as conferring upon a street vendor any temporary, permanent or perpetual right of carrying out vending activities in the vending zones allotted to him or in respect of any place on which he 10 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) carries on such vending activity. (2) Nothing contained in sub- section (1) shall apply to any stationery vendor, if a temporary leasehold or ownership right has been conferred on him by a lease deed or otherwise, in respect of a place at specific location where he carries on such vending activity in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force for carrying out such vending activity. Learned counsel for the respondent–Municipal Corporation, while inviting attention to Annexure-3A appended with reply, submitted that the Municipal Corporation, Solan had carried out a street vendors' survey in July 2021 and most of the petitioners (22 in number) did not figure in the said survey In response to this submission, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the survey so carried out by the respondent-corporation was not in conformity with the Act, Scheme, and the Rules. In this regard, reliance was placed upon following Clauses 3 & 4 of the Scheme: - “3. The manner of conducting survey. (1) The Town Vending Committee of the concerned Urban Local Body such as Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat, as the case may be, shall conduct the survey after engaging expert agency having experience of conducting survey to identify street vendors on the spot by spot verification. The whole process for conducting the survey and issuance of vending certificate shall be completed within maximum time period of one year and subsequent surveys shall be conducted after every five years. The methods which shall be used for survey are, (1) Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping; (ii) Digitalized photo census; 11 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) (n) Bio-metric alongwith photo Identity Cards; iv) The timing for survey shall be morning time from 7AM to 10 AM, afternoon time from 2 PM to 5 PM and evening time from 6 PM to 9 PM; and (V) Holding camps by the team constituted in this behalf in the market for awareness of street vendors in vending zone/areas. (2) The Urban Local Body shall notify in local dailies, the notice of commencement of on the spot survey of the Street Vendors. The notice shall inter-alia specify.- (a) Camps, market/area-wise, date and time of survey: (b) Nodal Officer of the area from Urban Local Bodies; and (c) Date and time upto which the applications for registration of the Street Vendors shall be entertained. 4. Issuance of certificate. The street vendor identified in the survey shall be issued certificate by the Town Vending Committee within a maximum period of three months from the date of survey in Form-1.” Reliance was also placed upon Rule 4 of the Rules, which reads as under (relevant part only): - “4. Constitution of Town Vending Committee. – (1) Every Municipality shall constitute the Town Vending Committee in the following manner, namely:- A. In the case of a Municipal Corporation, the committee shall consist ofthe following members, namely;- Official members – (i) The Municipal Commissioner who shall be the Chairperson of the Town Vending Committee; (ii) Medical Officer of the local authority or any officer-in- charge of the management of preventive health measures; (iii) representative of Collector ; (iv) representative of planning authority ; (iii) one Police official nominated by the Director General of Police not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police; and (vi) one representative of Traffic Police: 12 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) Provided that one of the official members as decided by the Chairperson shall act as the Secretary of the Committee. Non-official members- (i) one Councillor to be nominated by Local Authority ; (ii) representatives of the street vendors shall not be less than forty percent of total members in the committee; (a) while holding election of the street vendors to the Town Vending Committee, the Town Vending Committee, if it deems fit, shall decide the number of seats to be represented for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities and persons with disabilities on a rotation basis; and (b) for ensuring one-third representation for women, the Town Vending Committee shall decide the number of seats of reserved and open categories before each election which shall be represented by a women candidate only ; (iii) members of the community based organizations and the NonGovernment Organizations shall not be less than ten percent of total members in the committee ; (iv) one member of the Market and Trade Associations ; (v) one member of Resident Welfare Associations ; and (vi) one representative of the Nationalized Lead Bank of the city or town, as the case may be………” On the basis of the above provisions, it was contended for the petitioners that the Town Vending Committee, which allegedly got the survey carried out, was not duly constituted in terms of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street 13 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) Vending) Scheme, 2016, as well as the Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending)Rules, 2016. It was submitted that there had to be representatives of street vendors in the Town Vending Committee, constituting not less than 40% of the total members of the Committee. The Town Vending Committee allegedly constituted by the respondents in the year 2021 did not have street vendors as its members, as mandated by Rule 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2016. It was also submitted that Clause 3 of the Scheme, describes the manner of conducting the survey to identify street vendors. As per the provision, respondent-Municipal Corporation was also required to notify, through local newspapers, the commencement of the spot survey of street vendors, inter alia, specifying the camp/market/area-wise date and time of the survey, the details of the nodal officer of the area concerned, and the date and time up to which applications for registration as street vendors could be entertained. According to the petitioners, these provisions were never complied with by the respondent-Corporation while allegedly carrying out the survey of street vendors. A further contention was raised that the street vendors have not been issued certificates by the Town Vending Committee in terms of the Act & the Scheme framed thereunder to buttress the arguments that 14 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) street vendors survey had never been carried out as per law. It has also been submitted that some of the petitioners acknowledged as street vendors by the respondent-Municipal Corporation in the aforesaid survey, have also not been issued certificates. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners reiterated that the Town Vending Committee was itself not constituted in consonance with the Act, the Scheme and the Rules, therefore, the de-notification of Vending Zones Nos. 4 and 5 cannot, in any event, be said to be in accordance with law. For completion of facts, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on the basis of instructions imparted to him, submitted that although the tender for the construction of Shaheed Samarak Park was awarded in the year 2025, except for the construction of a retaining wall, the substantive construction work has not commenced till date. 4. Heard and considered the case file. It is not in dispute that the respondent–Municipal Corporation, Solan was constituted on 28.10.2020. Though it is the stand of the respondent–Municipal Corporation, Solan that it had carried out a survey of street vendors in July, 2021, however, the mode and manner of conducting the said survey is not available on record. The survey was required to be carried out strictly in consonance with the provisions of the Act & Rules framed 15 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) thereunder, inter alia, keeping in view Sections 3, 4 and 5 thereof. It is also to be borne in mind that the survey has to be ordered by a duly constituted Town Vending Committee, wherein, in terms of the Act, as also the Scheme & Rules framed thereunder, 40% of the members are required to be street vendors. It is not discernible from the record as to whether street vendors were members of the aforesaid Town Vending Committee. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent– Corporation submitted that the survey was got conducted by the Provisional Town Vending Committee in terms of Rule 5 of the 2016 Rules. Be that as it may. The undisputed fact is that ten vending zones including Zones Nos. 4 and 5 were earlier notified by the respondent- Corporation on 11.10.2023 allegedly based upon a duly carried out survey. The above two zones were de-notified on 13.08.2024. The petitioners have asserted that they/their predecessor had been street vending in the aforesaid zones for decades. The preamble of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 gives the object of enactment to protect the rights of urban street vendors and to regulate street vending activities and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. No doubt, Section 18 of the Act empowers the respondent-Corporation, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, to 16 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) declare a zone or part of a zone as a no-vending zone for any public purpose and to relocate the street vendors vending in that area in such manner as may be specified in the Scheme. At the same time, another provision of the Act, namely Section 21, read with the First Schedule framed thereunder, provides that an existing market or natural market identified during the survey shall not be declared as no-vending zone and the vendors operating therein cannot be displaced. These provisions have to be read harmoniously with the Scheme framed under Section 38 of the Act. Clause 14 thereof prescribes the manner of relocating street vendors in cases involving a public purpose. As per the said clause, upon completion of the development work, the displaced street vendors are to be provided space for vending in the original zones. The respondents have de-notified Vending Zones Nos. 4 and 5 citing the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in CWP No. 249 of 2017. In terms of the said order, the respondent-Corporation was directed to remove hindrances in the form of encroachments, idle parking, and street vendors squatting on NH-5. The provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2016, as well as the Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of 17 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2016, were not under consideration in the said petition. At this stage, it would be in place to refer Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.2 Relevant para from the judgment reads as under: - “32. As we have stated while summing up the petitioners' case, the main plank of their argument is that the right to life which is guaranteed by Art. 21 includes the right to livelihood and since, they will be deprived of their livelihood if they are evicted from their slum and pavement dwellings, their eviction is tantamount to deprivation of their life and is hence unconstitutional. For purposes of argument, we will assume the factual correctness of the premise that if the petitioners are evicted from their dwellings, they will be deprived of their livelihood. Upon that assumption, the question which we have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one answer to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art. 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, 2 AIR 1986 SCC 180 18 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life. Indeed, that explains the massive migration of the rural population to big cities. They migrate because they have no means of livelihood in the villages. The motive force which propels their desertion of their hearths and homes in the village is the struggle for survival, that is, the struggle for life. So unimpeachable is the evidence of the nexus between life and the means of livelihood. They have to eat to live: Only a handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That they can do, namely, eat, only if they have the means of livelihood. That is the context in which it was said by Douglas J. in Baksey, (1954) 347 M.D. 442 that the right to work is the most precious liberty that man possesses. It is the most precious liberty because, it sustains and enables a man to live and the right to life is a precious freedom. "Life", as observed by Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois3, means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. This observation was quoted with approval by this Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P4.” Following para In Sodan Singh & Ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors.5 is also relevant in the present context: - “17. So far as right of a hawker to transact business while going from place to place is concerned, it has been admittedly recognised for a long period. Of course, that also is subject to proper regulation in the interest of general convenience of the public including health and security considerations. What about the right to squat on the road side for engaging in trading 3 (1877) 94 US 113 4 (1964) 1 SCR 332: (AIR 1963 SC 1295) 5 (1989) 4 SCC 155 19 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) business? As was stated by this Court in Bombay Hawkers Union and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others6, the public streets by their nomenclature and definition are meant for the use of the general public: they are not laid to facilitate the carrying on of private business. If hawk- ers were to be conceded the right claimed by them, they could hold the society to ransom by squatting on the busy thoroughfares, thereby paralysing all civic life. This is one side of the picture. On the other hand, if properly regulated according to the exigency of the circumstances, the small traders on the said walks can considerably add to the com- fort and convenience of general public, by making available ordinary articles of every day use for a comparatively lesser price. An ordinary person, not very affluent, while hurrying towards his home after day's work can pick up these articles without going out of his way to find a regular market. If the circumstances are appropriate and a small trader can do some business for personal gain on the pave- ment to the advantage of the general public and without any discomfort or annoyance to the others, we do not see any objection to his carrying on the business. Appreciating this analogy the municipalities of different cities and towns in the country have been allowing such traders. The right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, on street pavements, if properly regulated cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re- passing and for no other use. Proper regulation is, however, a necessary condition as otherwise the very object of laying out roads-to facilitate traffic--may be defeated. Allowing the right to trade with- out appropriate control is likely to lead to unhealthy competition and quarrel between traders and travelling public and sometimes amongst the traders themselves resulting in chaos. The right is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (6) of Article 19. If the matter is examined in this light it will appear that the principle stated in Saghir Ahmad's case in connection with transport business applies to the hawkers' case also. The 6 [1985] 3 SCR 528 20 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) proposition that all public streets and roads in India vest in the State but that the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public, and the members of the public are entitled as bene- ficiaries to use them as a matter of right, and that this right is limited only by the similar fights possessed by every other citizen to use the pathways, and further that the State as trustee is entitled to impose all necessary limitations on the character and extent of the user, should be treated as of universal application.” It would also be apposite to refer to the following observations recently made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malkit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.7 concerning street vendors, disruption of their livelihood from familiar locations even for legitimate public reasons: - “11. While the efforts carried out thus far have apparently borne results and are therefore appreciable, it is a matter of concern for us whether all relevant efforts have been made to regularize such hitherto illegal vendors, including those who are not before us, by granting them space in designated vending zones so as to ensure minimum disruption to their livelihood in the long term. Any action by the State that disrupts this livelihood must therefore be carried out with care, fairness, and a clear sense of responsibility. If vending zones have already been identified and designated, it is not enough for the authorities to simply point to their existence. Removing vendors from familiar locations, even for legitimate public reasons such as easing congestion or improving urban order, creates an immediate need for support. Vending zones are meant to provide a lawful and workable alternative, and that purpose is lost if displaced vendors are left uncertain, uninformed, or unable to access these spaces in practice. Let the State clearly clarify the existing information 7 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21349/2025 decided on 09.04.2026 21 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) available at the defined vending zones which in any event have to be acceptable to all concerned. 12. This kind of assistance is not an act of generosity. It reflects a basic respect for the right to earn a living and to carry on a lawful occupation. When vendors are removed without any real help in relocating, the hardship caused is out of proportion to the regulatory goal, and such an exercise risks becoming punitive rather than orderly. In essence, if vendors are displaced through encroachment drives and lawful vending zones are available, the State has a duty to actively support their transition to these zones in accordance with the law. Doing so upholds both the spirit of regulation and the human reality of those whose lives depend on street vending. 13. It is also to be recognized that forcible shifting or removal of encroachments, while it may be entirely in accordance with law, disrupts the customer base that comes with the shop being located at a particular area. The State is required to undertake efforts to let residents know that the shops have been shifted, i.e., have awareness drives that would divert the customers to the designated area. Let an affidavit be filed with the relevant details, within two weeks of this order.” All the above relevant factors have apparently not been considered by respondent No.3 while de-notifying vending Zones No.4 & 5. In view of above & in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to direct respondent No. 3-Municipal Corporation, Solan to have a relook/reassess and revisit its decision of de-notifying Vending Zones Nos. 4 and 5, in accordance with law as also keeping in view the aforesaid observations made in Malkit Singh & Another.4 within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 22 ( 2026:HHC:33862 ) The instant petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 12th August, 2026(rohit)