IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14047 of 2026 Decided on: 17th August, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldeep …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Neha Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately allocate, rehabilitates, and grants a 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 permanent vending spot to the Petitioner at an accessible, high-footfall public area in Solan town, preferably near Anand Vihar Gate, near Sabji Mandi, Solan, or any equivalent busy public area, enabling him to earn a dignified livelihood. B. Issue a Writ of Directions commanding Respondent No.2 to pay suitable compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the arbitrary removal/destruction of his vending cart and stock.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a destitute, homeless and 100% permanent blind person. He has been selling boiled eggs on a small cart for the last 20-25 years for earning his livelihood. Respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation, Solan has renewed petitioner’s Street Vending License No.194 upto the year 2025, however, on account of an eviction drive of the respondents during the year 2025, petitioner’s kiosk was dismantled and removed during such drive. Respondent No.2 thereafter has constructed a new vending market, but the petitioner was neither informed about the allotment process nor he has been granted any vending space. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for a visually impaired person selling small food items, a high footfall crowded public area is a pre-requisite for earning livelihood. Petitioner’s representation-cum-notice dated 16.06.2026 (Annexure P-3) addressed to respondent No.2 has not been responded to as yet. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 5. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, but without adverting to the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 16.06.2026 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law, inter alia, keeping in view the provisions of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2016 and Himachal Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2016 as also keeping in view the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, within a period of four weeks from today, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 4 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 17, 2026 Judge Mukesh