AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 232 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following relief:-
“I. To issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume vending merchandise.
II. To issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in view of Section 4(2) of the STREET VENDORS STREET VENDORS (PROTECTION OF LIVELIHOOD AND REGULATION OF STREET VENDING) ACT, 2014.”
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that the field is now occupied by Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. He, therefore, submits that if petitioner makes application under Section 4(2) of the aforesaid Act, the same shall be considered by the Competent Authority, in accordance with law.
In view of the facts & circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make application under Section 4 (2) of the aforesaid Act to the Competent Authority, within two weeks from today. If such application is made within the stipulated period, the Competent Authority shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of application alongwith certified copy of this order.