Madurai Nagar Salaioram MatrumMarket Virpanaiyalar Sangam v. Tamil Nadu Textile Merchants Association Ltd. & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 21.02.2008Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANWrit Appeal No.975 of 2007Madurai Nagar Salaioram MatrumMarket Virpanaiyalar Sangam,ep. by its General Secretary,No.46, South Main Street,Thideer Nagar,Madurai 625 002.Appellantv.1. Tamil Nadu Textile Merchants Association Ltd., representedby its President, No.68, East Perumal Maistry Street, Madurai 625 001.2. The District Collector, Collectorate, Madurai.3. The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Corporation Buildings, Madurai.4. The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissioner's office, Madurai.RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.07.1999made in writ petition No.11496 of 1999.For appellant :Ms.R.VaigaiFor Respondent 1 :Mrs.AL.GandhimathiFor Respondents 2 &4 :Mr.A.Edwin PrabhakarFor Respondent 3 :Mr.M.Suresh Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was deliveredby K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.)This is an appeal filed against the order of the learnedsingle Judge dated 20.07.1999 made in writ petition No.11496 of1999 which was filed by the Tamil Nadu Textile MerchantsAssociation Limited, having its registered office at No.68, EastPerumal Maistry Street, Madurai seeking for issuance of writ ofmandamus directing respondents 1 to 3, the District Collector ofMadurai District, the Commissioner, Madurai City MunicipalCorporation, Madurai and the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, toforthwith remove the unauthorised encroachments by pavementvendors on the pavement of road margins, street margin, etc., andalso unauthorised parking of auto rickshaws, cycle rickshaws andother vehicles in East Masi street starting from Vilakuthoon uptoVenkalakadai street, in Venkalakadai street upto Meenakshi AmmanKoil street, Amman Sannadhi Street, East Chitrai Street, JadamuniKoil street, South Masi street from Manjakara Street toVilakuthoon, Kamarajar Salai from Vilakuthoon upto Keelavasal,entire mahal vadam pokki street and its bye lanes, in Gurusadilane connecting palace road and mahal vadam pokki street, Eastperumal Maistry Street, Navbathkana street and its byelanes, Tenpillar lane, south chitrai street and entire Meenakshi Amman koilstreet. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the secondrespondent Corporation, the learned single Judge passed an orderdirecting the second respondent to take appropriate steps toremove the encroachments as early as possible, and if it isnecessary to seek the assistance of the third respondent, theCommissioner of Police, Madurai. The said order was passed wayback on 20.7.1999. 3. That order has come to be challenged in the present writappeal after eight long years on the ground that taking advantageof the order impugned, the street hawkers were not allowed to dotheir hawking in and around the Meenakshi Amman temple, thatthere is a line of Supreme Court judgments protecting the rightof hawkers and that almost in all metropolitan areas, a schemehas been framed by the local authorities for the purpose ofregulating the hawking area, but so far the Madurai Corporationis concerned, no such exercise is done. 4. In the year 2004 a National Policy on urban streetvendors has also been evolved by the Department of UrbanEmployment and poverty alleviation, Ministry of Urban Developmentand Poverty Alleviation, New Delhi with an object to give the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hawkers legal status by amending, enacting, repealing andimplementing appropriate laws and providing legitimate hawkingzones in urban development/zoning plans. Learned counsel for theappellant submits that in accordance with such policy, the secondrespondent may be directed to make provision for hawkers. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent has producedbefore us a letter from the District Collector, Madurai in whichit is stated that there is no encroachment in four chithiraiveedhi surroundings of Sri Meenakshi Amman temple. However,there are temporary occupation by street vendors, sellingflowers, vegetables, fruits, etc., on the streets referred toabove. The Madurai Municipal Corporation is taking continuousefforts to remove these temporary vendors. They used to vacateat the time of apprehension by the Corporation officials. As ondate, there is no scheme for rehabilitation of these streetvendors.6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for therespondents has placed before us the judgment of a Division Benchof this Court in the case of The Madurai Maanagar Old Motor SpareParts Dealers' Association v. Madurai City Municipal Corporation.2005 (2) CTC 249, wherein a direction was issued to the MaduraiCorporation to take all effective steps to remove allencroachments in all the public roads and streets within thejurisdiction of this temple city. The appellant's counsel hassubmitted before this Court that the direction given by theDivision Bench in the above said ruling has been watered down bythe Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramaraju v. The Stateof Tamil Nadu. 2005 (2) CTC 741 by directing the statutoryauthorities to remove the encroachments after following dueprocess of law. It is also pertaining to the temple city ofMadurai town.7. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perusedthe materials available on record.8. The Writ Appeal is clearly and directly hit by laches. Asagainst the order passed on 20.7.1999, an appeal filed byappellant after obtaining leave from the Court on 3.11.1999 wasbrought for admission on 29.8.2007 and on that day an order waspassed directing the parties to maintain statusquo as on thatdate. From July l999 to August 2007, what was the position inwhich the members of the Appellant Sangam put in and whatprevented the appellant to move this Court within a reasonableperiod of time remained unanswered. If the members of theAppellant Sangam were really carrying their hawking activitiesand were really prevented by the respondents as claimed in theappeal, they would have rushed to the Court immediately as theirdaily livelihood was at stake for immediate relief for protecting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their activities, but would not have waited for eight long yearsto take their chance before the Court and that too relying on ascheme framed in the year 2004. This act of the appellantfortified by the statement of the respondent that there was nohawking activities in the stated area and no scheme was framedas no such necessity arose. Thus the appellant has not made outcase for admission. However, having regard to the National Policyof 2004 with which reliance has been placed by the counsel forappellant, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed offby directing the 2nd respondent to proceed further if there isnecessity as per the National Policy 2004. Such an order ispassed. A copy of the National Policy was handed over by thecounsel for the appellant to the counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondent, who is directed to forward the same to 2nd respondentfor further action if any required to be taken.9. With this observation, the writ appeal is disposed off.No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.mf/uskSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1. The District Collector, Collectorate, Madurai.2. The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Corporation Buildings, Madurai.3. The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissioner's office, Madurai.Rs (co)dv/6.3.W.A. No.975 of 2007