Why remove Bhadra street vendors in 2025 without any re-survey? Gujarat HC asks AMC

In the public interest litigation concerning the removal of street vendors from the Bhadra area of Ahmedabad, a detailed hearing was held today before the Chief Justice’s Bench of the Gujarat High Court.

At the conclusion of arguments by the Amdavad Municipal Corporation (AMC), the court made sharp observations, stating that removing vendors from Bhadra merely on the ground that traffic had increased—without conducting any re-survey or initiating a fresh process—amounts to contempt of the court’s 2019 order and is also a violation of Section 21 of the Street Vendors Act.

The high court made it clear that it now expects the AMC to place before the court its concrete proposal and explain how it intends to implement the earlier orders of the court.

It stated that the petition would be disposed of only if the AMC provides alternative arrangements and relocates the vendors accordingly. Otherwise, the court reiterated that AMC’s action would amount to contempt of court and a blatant violation of the law. The civic body has been granted time until Wednesday in this matter.

The court orally and strongly criticised the stance and actions of the AMC. The Court pointed out that, as per statutory provisions, it is undisputed that this area has not been declared a vending zone. On the contrary, the law empowers the Town Vending Committee to conduct a re-survey every five years. 

Once the corporation initially allocates spaces to vendors, it is required to promote street vendors every five years. These powers vest with the corporation, which may conduct a re-survey based on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee and in consultation with the planning authority. 

However, AMC has violated the law by not conducting any re-survey after 2019 and has also breached the assurance given to the high court and the orders passed on that basis, thereby committing contempt of court, it stated.

The court further observed that the AMC cannot now take a U-turn in this matter. Except for vendors who were not identified, you may remove others, but once you have filed an affidavit stating that 844 vendors were identified, it becomes the corporation’s duty to frame a plan in accordance with the law.

The court clarified that it is not restraining AMC from conducting a re-survey; that is within AMC’s authority. However, the survey that was conducted and placed before the court earlier led to specific orders. Thereafter, no re-survey was carried out. Therefore, there is no question now of re-identifying those vendors who were already identified and issued certificates at that time.

The court noted that with respect to situations arising after 2019, all options remain open for the civic body. However, the writ petition will be disposed of only when the vendors are relocated. 

Otherwise, the AMC’s action will be treated not only as contempt of court but also as being contrary to statutory provisions. 

If the corporation does not come forward with a positive proposal, it must inform the court under whose orders the vendors were removed from Bhadra in 2025.

Without a re-survey, how can you deny space to the 844 identified vendors, asked the court.

The court also rejected the corporation’s argument that circumstances at Bhadra have now changed. It pointed out that AMC itself removed the vendors in 2025 and now claims that conditions in the Bhadra area have changed. 

AMC’s case is not that the vendors were not working there since 2019. In its plan, AMC had stated that space would be allotted to 844 vendors. The vendors cooperated with the corporation at that time and continued working thereafter. 

However, without conducting any re-survey, the corporation removed them. If this is the factual position, the court observed, then the corporation cannot even shift the vendors by one metre.

AMC, on the other hand, argued that if space is allotted to 844 vendors in Bhadra today, the entire area would come to a standstill.

To that, the court warned that such an argument could land the Corporation in contempt. Circumstances may have changed, but how can the Court accept such a claim without any survey? AMC cannot touch any vendor without conducting a re-survey or a fresh survey. 

If your case is that allotting space to 844 vendors will create a severe traffic problem, then prepare a fresh plan, conduct a re-survey, and take a decision on relocating them, court said. 

The court cautioned AMC that the situation is serious and demanded to know its concrete proposal. 

AMC sought four to five days’ time, stating that it needs time to examine the feasibility of relocating the vendors. The court responded that if the corporation is merely examining feasibility, it is making it clear that the corporation may be entering into contempt of court.