IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 21.02.2008 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN Writ Appeal No.975 of 2007 Madurai Nagar Salaioram Matrum Market Virpanaiyalar Sangam, ep. by its General Secretary, No.46, South Main Street, Thideer Nagar, Madurai 625 002. Appellant v. 1. Tamil Nadu Textile Merchants Association Ltd., represented by 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. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.07.1999 made in writ petition No.11496 of 1999. For appellant : Ms.R.Vaigai For Respondent 1 : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi For Respondents 2 &4: Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar For Respondent 3 : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered
by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.)
This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.07.1999 made in writ petition No.11496 of 1999 which was filed by the Tamil Nadu Textile Merchants Association Limited, having its registered office at No.68, East Perumal Maistry Street, Madurai seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3, the District Collector of Madurai District, the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai and the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, to forthwith remove the unauthorised encroachments by pavement vendors on the pavement of road margins, street margin, etc., and also unauthorised parking of auto rickshaws, cycle rickshaws and other vehicles in East Masi street starting from Vilakuthoon upto Venkalakadai street, in Venkalakadai street upto Meenakshi Amman Koil street, Amman Sannadhi Street, East Chitrai Street, Jadamuni Koil street, South Masi street from Manjakara Street to Vilakuthoon, Kamarajar Salai from Vilakuthoon upto Keelavasal, entire mahal vadam pokki street and its bye lanes, in Gurusadi lane connecting palace road and mahal vadam pokki street, East perumal Maistry Street, Navbathkana street and its byelanes, Ten pillar lane, south chitrai street and entire Meenakshi Amman koil street.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the second respondent Corporation, the learned single Judge passed an order directing the second respondent to take appropriate steps to remove the encroachments as early as possible, and if it is necessary to seek the assistance of the third respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai. The said order was passed way back on 20.7.1999.
3. That order has come to be challenged in the present writ appeal after eight long years on the ground that taking advantage of the order impugned, the street hawkers were not allowed to do their hawking in and around the Meenakshi Amman temple, that there is a line of Supreme Court judgments protecting the right of hawkers and that almost in all metropolitan areas, a scheme has been framed by the local authorities for the purpose of regulating the hawking area, but so far the Madurai Corporation is concerned, no such exercise is done.
4. In the year 2004 a National Policy on urban street vendors has also been evolved by the Department of Urban Employment and poverty alleviation, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, New Delhi with an object to give the hawkers legal status by amending, enacting, repealing and implementing appropriate laws and providing legitimate hawking zones in urban development/zoning plans. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in accordance with such policy, the second respondent may be directed to make provision for hawkers.
5. Learned counsel for the second respondent has produced before us a letter from the District Collector, Madurai in which it is stated that there is no encroachment in four chithirai veedhi surroundings of Sri Meenakshi Amman temple. However, there are temporary occupation by street vendors, selling flowers, vegetables, fruits, etc., on the streets referred to above. The Madurai Municipal Corporation is taking continuous efforts to remove these temporary vendors. They used to vacate at the time of apprehension by the Corporation officials. As on date, there is no scheme for rehabilitation of these street vendors.
6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has placed before us the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Madurai Maanagar Old Motor Spare Parts Dealers’ Association v. Madurai City Municipal Corporation. 2005 (2) CTC 249, wherein a direction was issued to the Madurai Corporation to take all effective steps to remove all encroachments in all the public roads and streets within the jurisdiction of this temple city. The appellant’s counsel has submitted before this Court that the direction given by the Division Bench in the above said ruling has been watered down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramaraju v. The State of Tamil Nadu. 2005 (2) CTC 741 by directing the statutory authorities to remove the encroachments after following due process of law. It is also pertaining to the temple city of Madurai town.
7. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. The Writ Appeal is clearly and directly hit by laches. As against the order passed on 20.7.1999, an appeal filed by appellant after obtaining leave from the Court on 3.11.1999 was brought for admission on 29.8.2007 and on that day an order was passed directing the parties to maintain statusquo as on that date. From July l999 to August 2007, what was the position in which the members of the Appellant Sangam put in and what prevented the appellant to move this Court within a reasonable period of time remained unanswered. If the members of the Appellant Sangam were really carrying their hawking activities and were really prevented by the respondents as claimed in the appeal, they would have rushed to the Court immediately as their daily livelihood was at stake for immediate relief for protecting their activities, but would not have waited for eight long years to take their chance before the Court and that too relying on a scheme framed in the year 2004. This act of the appellant fortified by the statement of the respondent that there was no hawking activities in the stated area and no scheme was framed as no such necessity arose. Thus the appellant has not made out case for admission. However, having regard to the National Policy of 2004 with which reliance has been placed by the counsel for appellant, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed off by directing the 2nd respondent to proceed further if there is necessity as per the National Policy 2004. Such an order is passed. A copy of the National Policy was handed over by the counsel for the appellant to the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, who is directed to forward the same to 2nd respondent for 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/usk
To
1. 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.