U. Bavargi, S/o v. Mango Rao Aged about

13.P. Anjaneyulu, Slo. P. Yellaiah . Aged about 25 yearc, Occ Street Vending 14.P. Pavan, S/o. P. Srinivas Aged about 25 years,..Qcc Street Vending 15.Y. Krishnaiah, S/o. Y. Sd.ttaiah Aged about 26 years,.Occ Street Vending 16. N. Padma, Wo. Narsing Rao Aged about 50 years, Qcc $treet Vending All are R/o. Clo. B.M.S. Officeo TRT-141 gth Street, Jawahar Nagar, Hycleraladd -500020 ..pETr*oNERS AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretiariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad

2. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Departrnent of Home,.. 3. State of Telangana, Rep.By its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad Administration Urban Development . Secretariat Buildings, ,Hyderabad

4. The Greater Hyderabad.Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner and Chairperson Town Vending Committee, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad

5. Commissioner of Police, Gyberabad, Hyderabad. 6. Additional Commissioner of Police (Trffic), Hyderabad and Member Town -and Vending Police Control Room, Hyderabad

7. The Station House OffiCer, Madhapur Traffic Polite Station Madhapur, Cyberabad, Hyderabad 8 Telangana State lndustriallnfrastructure Hyderabad Rep by its Managing Directand I The Station House Officer, Kukatpally Cyberabad, Hyderabad Corporatign Ltd, Basherbagh, Traffic Poli,oe Station Kukatpally, ...RESPONDENTS ' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the Respondent Nos.1 to o 3 in not implementing the provisions of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regutation of Street Vending) Act,2O14 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the procedure laid down under the said Act and atso contrary to the taw laid down by the Flon'ble Supreme Court and consequently 'direct Respondent NOs 1 to 3 to implement the provisions of the said Act and further direct the Respondent Nos.4 to g not to harass the Petitioners by imposing fine, eviction, confiscation of goods etc l.A. NO: 1 OF 201I6(WPMP. NO: 684 OF 2016) Petition uncler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Resporrdent Nos.4 to g not to harass: the Petitioners herein by imposing fine, eviction, confiscation of goods etc., in violation of Section 3(3) of f'The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Streef Vending) Act, 2014", pending disposal of the Writ Petition lA NO: 1 OF 2A18 Between: Telangana. State lndustriallnfrastructure Corporation Ltd, Basherbagh, Hyderabad ttep by its Managing Directand . :, AND .. ... PETITIONER/RESPONDE NT No.8/RESPONDENT No.8 StreetVending 1, G. Venkateshwarlu, s/o. G. Raghavulu Aged about 4s years, occ ?. s. Kalpang,l{./g.s-..Srinivas Ag-ed about Q0^years, occ street .vending 1- !1. pSvargi, [i/o v. lFng.g [qo Age_d about 35 yeais, occ street venoiig 4. K. veerabaclram, S/o. K. veera Swamy ngdd abbut 37 years, occ-street 5. B. Gangamnra, wo. B. RaviAged about 28 years, occ street -Vending Vending StreetoVending

6.T.Raiamma,S/o.Krishnaiah-e.g:Aabou!31years'OccstreetVendinq 7 . Nandtat yadav, s/o. Bunda rrrranto"-xg-t ;6drt-ra ya;; d-sGet vendl[r9 g. prakash yadav, S/o. Bikham Va'ii"w- o Aged ab6ut 31 years, occ 9. V. Appa Rao, $/o. Nuk? $glu foed a.bou! 19 years' occ street Vendins 10.V. Venkanna, S/o. Pentaiah AgA abotfiqS ipqf' Occ Street-vending ii,[,H#'H#ii:t$;[rer:'Wiit*u:or??*eooi3:ff %rtll"n* ars, occ street Vending i?:i:0,'.21[ti5:31"s'I;,JiJ'i3kff3ft ?f##,Iffi 'sL6l1-v*iing 1 5. Y. Krishnaiah, a/olv.' SA:ttdf"h As"d iootirzo years"occ street vendins 16. N. padma, wl"I',ili.ding i{iJAg&-iooriEo d"o, Qcc $treet Vendins vending e/^ p vanaiah

17.State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretiariat Buildings'

18. 19

21. 22.

23. 24.?il3"38?$r'ti",133"3*."r, Kukatpany rraffic porice station Kukatpailv, ...RESPoNDENTS/RESPoNDENTS cyberabad' Hyderabad Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 06-01-2016 made WPMP No 684 of 2016 in W.P.No. 552 of 2016 CounselforthePetitionerc:SRI.MOGiLIANAVENI Counset for the neipondent No.l: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION counset for the Cesponaent Nos. 2to3,5toe: SRI .AHHffiXIX,EEDDY' counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR MCPL ADMN'URBAN DEV Counset for the Cespondent No.8i SRI M SRIKANTH REDDY (SC FOR TGIIC) itre Court made the following: ORDER THE HOI\IOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ORDER. This w:rit petition is filed seeking flor the following relief: "...to issue an apPropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.l to o 3 in not implementing the provisions of Th,e Street Vendors (?rotection of Livelihood and Rq;u[ation of Street Vending) Acg 2Ol4 as arbitrary, illeC and in violation of the procedure laid down unrler the said Act and also contr^ty to the law laid do'wn by the Honble Supreme Court and consequently direct the Respondent NOs.l to 3 to implement the provisions of the said Act and further direct the Respondent Nos.4 to 9 not to harass the Petitioners by imr:osing fine, eviction, confiscation of goods etc', and pa$s, . . ..".

2. I have heard Mr.Mogili Anaveni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant G overnment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.L to 3, 5 to g,leatned Govefnment Pleader for Departrnent o[ Municipal Administration and Urban 2 Development ?ppeurtng for respondent No.4 and Mr.M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for \ Telangana State Industrial, Infrastnrcture Coqporation Limited, appe rTrug for respondent No.8.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Liaelibood and Regulation of Street Vmding) Ac$ 2014 are being drly implemented in accordance with Iaw. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not brought on record any specific instance of violation or non-compliance. Hence, in view of the statutory framewotk being implemented, the grievance raised in the present writ petition does not survive for consideration. +. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, supporting the above submission, contends that the = jgspondent-police have neither interfered with no-r created .+r 'k 3 any impedirrrent in the implementation of the provisions of the 201,4 Act. It is emphasized tha1t the role of the police, if at alJ, required, is confi.ned to extending assistance for enforcemenl: strictly in accordance with the ptocedure \ established 1Uy law and in furth erarnrce of the obiectives of \ the said Act, 5 I have perused the materials on record.

6. Having fegard to the praly$ made and the submissions advanced b:f the respondents, and in view of the fact that the provisions of the Sneet Vendors (Protection of Liuelihood and Rcgulation of StreetVending) Act, 2014 are being implemented, this Court ir; of the considered opinion that continuation of the present writ petition is rendered unnecessary.

7. Howe',ref, it is made clear that the rights of the petitioners to institute apProPriate proceedings or to zvai), Qny other remedies available to them under law are 4 expressly reserved- subjecr ro this riberry, the wnt petition stands disposed of, There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending tf any, shall stand ^,, ...- ..:, SD/. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER closed. To,

5. 6. Traffic Polite Station Madhapur, Cyberabad, HYderabad 7 f . iffi M;ilgini oirector and Corporation Ltd.,Te.langam 911!"-^. g. tne Station House fficer,'Kukatpally Traffic Police Station Kul€tpalry' ,0.8#S#'SHt"ilSSfuANAVENIAdvocale-toP-ucl ,ii:iil ccjto cp FoR t,tuNlctpAL nomtttiSrfuqnoN AND T RBAN ' ''oEVif--oprrltENf 12.one CC to sRt. M. SRIKANIr nEooi i5C ron^r-Glrc) toP[,c] i3:i,,,ro CCsto Ci FOC HOfUe, High Court forthe State of Telangana, at ., o. Ti$"S3[t%tt'L"F G ,Hig-d-b;rrt ior the State of Telanoana. at Hvderabad [OUTI N FB3L ADM I N I srRArt o N, H is h cou rt ror the state F of Telangana, at HYderabad [OUTI 1S.Two CD Copies BM PVL Ya- 4 :, : ! I I I I tE\tt S TA o() |l 2[2[ AJ 12 * i -4. t o HIGH COURT DATED:19/09/2025 ORDER WP.No.552 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT'COSTS 99 ,@ ft,r,