GOPAL KUMAR AND 14 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 18886 of 2026

Gopal Kumar And 14 Others
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Navin Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh

Court No. - 21
            HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
            HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Uttara
Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri
Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

     "a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to
     quash the order dated 12.09.2023, 11.10.2023, 18.10.2023,
     09.11.2023 and 08.01.2024 passed by respondent no.4.

     b) Issue a writ order or direction in the to the nature of
     mandamus directing respondent no.2, 3 and 5 to protect the
     petitioners from destruction of their vending items and carts etc.
     by the respondent from their sites of squatting /vending as per the
     mandate of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood And
     Regulation    of   Street   Vending)     Act,   2014    Notification/
     Government Order dated 15.06.2017 of the Chief Secretary for
     implementation of Section 3 (3) of The Street Vendors (Protection
     of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

     c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of parity relief
     allowing the present humble petition of petitioners in view of
     settled position in civil misc. writ-C no. 27130 of 2024 Sohan
     Kumar Das and 29 others Versus state of U.P. and 3 others.
                                                          WRIC No. 18886 of 2026
                                 2


     d) Issue nature a writ order or direction in the of mandamus
     directing to the respondents to give the benefit of the office order
     dated 03.09.2021 and 10.09.2021 (Which is annexed as Annexure
     no.2 to this writ petition) to the present petitioners for issuance of
     vending certificate."

3. The petitioners being street vendors claim allotment of vending area under
the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending Act, 2014 (in short the 'Act 2014') read with Rule 12 of the Uttar
Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Rules 2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are street
vendors and in most arbitrary manner, the claim of petitioners was rejected
by the respondent authority as they have carried out vending in the vending
zone as per survey. He has placed reliance upon the order dated 01.05.2024,
which is brought on record alongwith supplementary affidavit. He submits
that the said order had been passed in response to the order dated 31.10.2022
passed in Writ Petition No.32279 of 2022 (Ratan Yadav and others vs. State
of U.P. and others) and the claim of petitioners is squarely covered under the
Act of 2014.

5. Per contra, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for NOIDA
Authority has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that in view
of Act 2014, the survey was conducted, wherein, it was found that 7652
vendors were working in various zones, out of which 4936 persons were
already allotted places in the vending zone. He submits that at the time of
survey, the petitioners were not carrying out the work in the vending zone.
Firstly, the endeavour of the Authority is to rehabilitate the remaining
vendors in the vending zone and thereafter the new survey would be carried
out, then only the fresh area would be earmarked.

6. Considering the aforesaid factual situation, we do not find any reason to
discard the survey report and the objection of Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh
is sustainable. It is always expected that the Authority must settle the
vendors, who are found in the survey and actually performing or carrying
out business at the roadside.
                                                                                           WRIC No. 18886 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    7. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to quash the order
                                    impugned. Needless to say that the petitioners are is at liberty to press the
                                    relief under the Act, 2014 at the appropriate stage.

                                    8. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed
                                    of.



                                                       (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    May 14, 2026
                                    Sumit S




Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad