Sadhan Goswami vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Division Bench of this Court in WPPIL No. 151 of 2015 issued certain directions vide order dated 04.09.2018. Para 9 of the said order is extracted

below:-

“9. It is made absolutely clear that the vendors shall maintain absolute hygiene and cleanliness on the areas allotted to them. The list of

all these vendors shall be prepared and the space shall be allotted only to the already registered vendors. The permission shall be cancelled

immediately, if the terms and conditions of allotment are not adhered to. It shall be the duty of the Executing Officer to ascertain the

antecedents of all the vendors, as an interim measure.â€​

In terms of the said direction issued by Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid PIL, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital started the process of

verification of street vendors. Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad (respondent No. 2) submits that in terms of

Court’s direction, Nagar Palika Parishad issued public notice inviting applications from the street vendors. He further submits that petitioner did

not respond to the said notice, but ultimately he filed WPMS No. 1063 of 2019, which was disposed of by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order

dated 24.04.2019. Operative portion of the said judgment is extracted below:-

“Considering the statement made by the petitioner, if the petitioner has filed the application seeking permission for resuming his vending

merchandise in the light of the order dated 9th October, 2018, the application of the petitioner would be considered by the Executive

Officer, i.e. respondent No. 2 and would pass an appropriate order on the same within a period of one month from today.â€​

In terms of the order of this Court, petitioner made an application, which has been rejected by Executing Officer, Nainital vide order dated

21.06.2019. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his claim that he

was vending goods and articles on the streets of Nainital town, but petitioner could not produce any evidence in support of his claim.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had submitted all documents in support of his application, which have been completely

overlooked by the Nagar Palika Parishad, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, however, controverts this statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submits that not even a single document was enclosed by the petitioner along with his application. He further submits that in the writ petition, petitioner

has not enclosed any evidence to show that he was actually a street vendor earlier. He further submits that Nagar Palika Parishad used to issue

Tehbazari receipt to the street vendor, therefore, if the claim of the petitioner was correct, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to at least produce

one Tehbazari receipt along with his application.

This Court finds substance in the contention made by learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad. In the writ petition also no evidence has been

filed by the petitioner in support of his claim that he was a street vendor earlier. The impugned order clearly indicates that despite several

opportunities, petitioner could not produce any evidence.

In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.