Gujarat HC reserves order in Bhadra street vendors PIL, next hearing on March 13

Gujarat High Court on Tuesday slammed the Amdavad Municipal Corporation (AMC) for evicting street vendors from Bhadra, emphasising that restoration of vendors is a precondition for any further action under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

However the counsel appearing for AMC submitted before the court that, corporation is not going to accommodate vendors till the survey is conducted. The court has reserved the order. The matter is likely to be heard on March 13.

Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning street vendors in Bhadra, the bench made it clear that the 2014 Act does not permit eviction without due process, stating, "You have no other option but to put street vendors back in place and then carry out survey. Put 556 in place and then conduct a survey."

The court highlighted that the AMC had previously filed affidavits committing to accommodate 844 vendors by reducing space allocations, a statement recorded in court that effectively amounts to a direction. "In your anxiety or your zeal to set things right you (AMC) removed everyone, which you couldn't have done because the writ petition was pending," the bench observed, adding that the corporation's actions risked contempt of court.

The AMC counsel argued that the area, previously a no-vehicle zone in 2016, has now become vehicle-friendly following redevelopment, making it difficult to accommodate vendors on roads where vending spots were originally planned.

The bench countered, "Who stopped you from doing survey? This area was under re-development. These vendors were already there at that time." It further reprimanded the AMC for not convening the Town Vending Committee and for failing to produce minutes.

 "First you accommodate, then conduct a survey. First undo the wrong you have committed, otherwise we will be forced to issue show cause notice for committing contempt," the division bench warned.

In response, the AMC counsel expressed willingness to engage with stakeholders, including SEWA and CELO, to discuss and initiate the survey immediately. "We are not running away from it," the counsel assured, proposing discussions to work out allotments.

The court told AMC's counsel that the material which you are trying to show is not a material which we should take into consideration. It is something which you have prepared, how nobody knows."

The bench reiterated that the corporation must act in accordance with the provisions of the Street Vendors Act. "Put things in place, carry out survey. Act in accordance with provisions, take action according to the provisions of Act. We will not come in your way," it directed.

The matter has been reserved for orders, with the next hearing scheduled for March 13.