Town Vending Committee must determine vending-zone status and vendor authorization after hearing all interested parties.

The petitioners complained that respondent nos. 4 and 5 had erected temporary bookstalls in front of their shop at 18B, Shyama Charan Dey Street, Kolkata–700073, thereby obstructing ingress and egress.

When the writ petition was initially heard, the Court noted that the rights of street vendors were protected under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (“2014 Act”), and directed that the statutory Town Vending Committee constituted under Section 22 be impleaded.

The Commissioner of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, in his capacity as Ex-Officio Chairman of the Town Vending Committee, was added as a respondent and directed to report whether the relevant street or footpath had been declared a vending zone.

The Court also directed the private respondents not to stack additional books so as to further interfere with the shop’s ingress and egress, while permitting them to continue their business for the time being.

The subsequent municipal report identified the stall on a sketch map but did not state whether the adjoining footpath was a vending zone; it also referred to Municipal Commissioner’s Circular No. 07 of 2019–2020, which prohibited further encroachment.

The Court observed that several similar vending stalls existed on the footpath and that the petitioners had not approached the Court immediately after the vending commenced.

Whether the footpath in front of the petitioners’ premises at 18B, Shyama Charan Dey Street, Kolkata–700073, had been declared a vending zone under the 2014 Act.

Whether the private respondents had been granted lawful authority to continue their vending business at that location.

Whether the issue should be determined by the Town Vending Committee after considering the position of all similarly situated vendors, rather than only the private respondents.

The Court applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which protects the rights and livelihood of street vendors and provides for a statutory Town Vending Committee under Section 22 to regulate and determine matters relating to street vending and vending zones.

The Court also took note of Municipal Commissioner’s Circular No. 07 of 2019–2020, which stated that further encroachment would not be permitted.

The governing procedural principle was that the competent statutory authority should determine, after giving affected and interested parties an opportunity of hearing, whether the area constituted a vending zone and whether the concerned vendors were authorised to operate there.

The Court found that the municipal report failed to answer the central question—whether the footpath adjoining the petitioners’ premises was a vending zone—and therefore the issue remained appropriately within the province of the Town Vending Committee.

The photographs showed that the private respondents’ stall was not an isolated encroachment, but one among several similar stalls on the footpath.

In view of the statutory protection available to street vendors, the pendency of the matter before the Town Vending Committee, and the need to avoid a decision confined only to the private respondents, the Court considered it appropriate to leave the determination to that Committee after hearing all interested parties.

The Court also declined to rely on the petitioners’ contention that the private respondents carried on business elsewhere because that assertion had not been pleaded.

The earlier interim direction restricting the stacking of additional books was continued until the Committee’s decision, while leaving the Committee free to pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.