S Vijayam vs The State of Tamil Nadu, The Corporation of Madras and The Executive Engineer

N.K. Jain, C.J.—These three writ petitions are filed by Hawkers doing hawking business. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 20560 of 1993

alleges that she is eking out her livelihood by running a tea stall near ESI Hospital from the year 1980. She alleges that nearby shop owners forming

themselves as association made a representation to the Respondent Corporation to allot alternative shops. On 16.1.1988, the Petitioner also made

a representation, to which a reply was sent by Corporation on 17.4.1989 informing action is being taken. As such, the Petitioner is before this

Court praying for a direction to the Respondents to provide a regular shop to carry on trade on the margin of the road near ESI Hospital, K.K.

Nagar, Chennai. Similarly, the Petitioner-Sangam in W.P. No. 9 of 1994 represented by its President states that the members of the Sangam are

eking out their livelihood by hawking business at the pavements at various places of city of Madras. They pray for a direction directing the

Respondent-Corporation not to remove them except by due process of law. Similarly, the Petitioner-Association in W.P. No. 10076 of 1996

alleges that its members are doing hawking in the North Mada Street, Mylapore eversince 1960. They pray this Court to direct the first

Respondent-Corporation to consider and issue licence to the members of the Petitioner-Association at any suitable place nearby.

Since the grievance of the Petitioners in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by a common order, as agreed by the

parties.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are doing hawking business and the same cannot be denied by the

Respondents. Therefore, necessary direction may be issued to the Respondents to identify the hawking and non-hawking zones and to regulate

their trade by granting necessary licences. He relied on the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in Bombay Hawkers'' Union and

Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, , Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur, and in Saudan Singh and Others Vs.

N.D.M.C. and Others, .

Mr. N. Kannadasan, Learned Counsel for the Corporation of Chennai submits that nothing has been placed on record to show as to who are

the members of the Petitioners'' association at the relevant point of time and the guidelines of their claim so that new persons cannot take advantage

in the garb of these writ petitions. That part, each case depends upon the facts and circumstances of its own and the nature of business. Therefore,

no general direction, as prayed for, can be issued in these writ petitions. However, he submits that as per the direction of the Hon''ble Supreme

Court passed in SLP No. 13360 of 1999 dated 26.10.1999, the Corporation of Chennai had agreed to frame a scheme and appointed a

Committee headed by Justice A Abdul Hadi with Mr. U. V. Raghunath, Senior Planner, C.M.D.A. and Mr. P. Baskar, Deputy Commissioner of

Police (Traffic), Chennai as its members. This Court vide order dated 10.01.2001 passed in W.M.P. No. 22086 of 1999 in W.P. No. 4578 of

1993, has given directions to the Committee to regulate the business of hawkers, and consider their cases as per the directions. The Committee is

also free to lay down guidelines and procedures for the mode of allotment of the respective areas.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners'' association has submitted that the present Petitioners'' case may also be considered by the said

Committee.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The alleged facts are all disputed questions of fact,

which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. However, this Court while considering W.M.P. No. 22086 of 1999 in W.P. No. 4578 of 1993 on

10.01.2001, has given a detailed direction to the Committee, so appointed. The said Committee will verify each and every case, after verifying the

genuineness of individual members of the Petitioner-Associations at the relevant point of time, and identify the hawking and non-hawking zones, as

per the directions. Accordingly, we direct the Committee to consider the respective cases of the Petitioners herein and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, the above writ

petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M. Ps. are closed.