Professional Documents
Culture Documents
has forcibly told the petitioner to wind up his business which he was
carrying for more than 40 years. He was mending the shoes just near
impugned order he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court
in the case contended that such action was warranted under Swach
location and that is why the petitioner was asked to relocate his
business at identified alternate space which is Sunheri lane, Tilak
Marg, New Delhi and thus which doesn’t tantamount to any violation
High Court that since he was working for nearly 40 years because of
occupied the pavement but there are almost 230 such pavement
vendors including chai walas , juice walas, toys walas; polish wala’s
alleged that on daily basis the wastage and garbage collection vans
Courts, ILI and ISIL and many other officials of other institutions
succumbed to COVID-19 is because many such employees who go
DMAI passed an order no: 123/21 dated 15th March, 2021 restricting
the vendors to carry on their business. The Delhi High Court passed
alternate site within 20 days from the date of order and also directed
(of 6’ x 6’ ft area) for petitioner at the alternate site which NDMC has
,2023 of the High Court, the petitioner filed the appeal before Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
1.ISSUES FRAMED.
is maintainable or not?
2.SUMMARY ARGUMENTS.
the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his
right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood .In this case
relocation is not just fair and reasonable because the appellant has been
doing bussiness at the said place since 40 years with proper permission
from the NDMC &has earned the good clientele and goodwill.The right to
human beings and includes all those aspects of life, which make a man’s
life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is the only Article in the
the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements for a person from
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the impunged orders
passed by the NDMC & DMAI are not maintainable under Article
appellant has been doing business at the said place since 40 years with
the proper permission from NDMC and without causing any hindrance to
the pavement for the general public.NDMC has forcibly told the petitioner
maintainable.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the appeal is valid
law and fundamental rights, including the violation of the right to livelihood
under Article 21 and the restriction of business under Article 19 (1) (g) of
the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and
3.ADVANCED ARGUMENTS.
Issue 1 :
this court that the petitioner, Brij Mohan Katyal, has been earning his
years without causing any hindrance to pavement for the general public
Constitution.
integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Court held that
2. He has built a set clientele and goodwill due to the rush of contenders
and general public to the courts and other nearby institutions. This
alternate site. Relocating the petitioner's business would not only disrupt
Retaurants Assn.& …2
The Supreme Court emphasized that economic rights and the right
His business has provided him with a means to sustain himself and his
different location, the Delhi Municipal Corporation has infringed upon his
relocation is warranted under the Swach Bharat Mission and to protect the
occupations.
3. The petitioner's business did not create any hindrance to the general
corporation and has proper receipts to prove it. Hence, he has been
carrying out his business legally and with permission all these years.
in the area due to the rush of contenders and the general public to the
impact his right to earn a livelihood and would result in the loss of this
clientele and goodwill. This would directly impact his right to earn a
of the constitution.
must be justified.
ISSUE: 2
constitution.
business.
2.The petitioner contends that the NDMC has forcibly told him to wind
Hon’ble supreme court of India held that the , The street vendors
(1) The Town Vending Committee shall, within such period and in
of all existing street vendors, within the area under its jurisdiction,
five years.
(2) The Town Vending Committee shall ensure that all existing
(3) No street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be,
relocated till the survey specified under sub-section (1) has been
vendors.
regulated cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant
order by the NDMC and DMAI is against the Article 19 (1)(g) as the
petitioner has been carrying his business at the said place for more than
he has earned the clientele and goodwill which won’t be possible for him
to earn at this point of age at other place which will ultimately lead to him
to the loss of his livelihood which would make him and his family suffer
and can lead them to death as they would be without any means to survive
and is ultimate violation of Right to life under article 21 and Right to Carry
This case can be cited to argue that the State’s power to regulate trade or
restrictions.
In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to carry on a
19(6) if properly regulated the small traders can considerably add to the
circumstances, the small traders on the side walks can considerably add
ordinary person, not very affluent, while hurrying towards his home after
a day’s work can pick up these articles without going out of his way to find
regulated cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant
4.it is humbly submitted before the court that the impunged order passed
in the newspaper “the horizon” which is not a report from the authentic
government body.DMAI can’t merely relay on that news and from the facts
passed by the DMAI which will stop these vendors from earning their
pass any impunged order which will infringe the Fundamental rights of the
people.
the order should be applicable to other institutions as well which are with
“in a nutshell the guarantee takes into its fold any activity
carried on by a citizen of India to earn his living. The activity of
course must be legitimate and not anti- social like gambling,
trafficking in women and the like.”
relocate without any valid reason related to the pandemic is arbitrary and
unreasonable.
(2000): The Supreme Court declared that the impugned orders passed by
Association of India) were not maintainable under Article 19 (1) (g) of the
any profession, trade, or business under Article 19 (1) (g) includes the
by the State.
(M)In Gainda Ram v. MCD(2010)
Hon’ble court held that Hawkers also serve a public need of less affluent
All over the world public spaces are utilized by permitting hawking in a
eminently in public interest as it will also generate revenue for the State.
The consideration for use of public space by hawkers would ensure that
the amount which lines the private pockets for permitting hawking, finds
ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-
passing and for no other use.In this case emphasize was given to
vendor Act)2014 that under the provisions of the said act Hawking
will stop states arbitrary action to stop vendors from carrying their
respective bussiness.
ISSUES :3
Supreme Court:
1.It is submitted before the hon’ble court that the petitioner has filed an
appeal under Article 136 and Article 132 respectively before the Hon'ble
Special Leave Petition is not an appeal in itself, but a petition filed for an
appeal, and the Supreme Court grants the “Leave” to convert the petition
into an “Appeal”.
2.It is very commonly known that against any judgment, an appeal can lie
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002): This case underscores that
writ petitions.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ratanlal & Ors. (2013): This case
clarifies that the Supreme Court may consider writ petitions if there is a
4.
The respondent may argue that the writ petition is not maintainable.
Article 21 and the restriction of business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and authority
livelihood has been violated by the relocation order of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation. The impugned orders passed by NDMC and DMAI are not
maintainable under the Indian Constitution. The writ petition filed for
appeal under Article 136 and 132 before the Supreme Court is valid. The
case clarifies that the Supreme Court may consider writ petitions if
place which will render him jobless which will ultimately infringe his
fundamental rights.
Gross Injustice: the orders were not passed under the due authority
It was held in the case that any authority which passes order right
Article 132: Supreme court’s Appellate Jurisdiction over appeals from high
for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any High Court “judgement,
decree, or final order”, where case is related to any criminal matter, civil
matter, or any other matter and if it is certified by the High Court that the
Constitution and Where such a certificate is given by the high court itself.
Any party on such grounds can appeal in supreme court on ground that in
(1953), it was concluded that an appeal under Article 132 can only
The respondent may argue that the writ petition is not maintainable.
Article 21 and the restriction of business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and authority
livelihood has been violated by the relocation order of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation. The impugned orders passed by NDMC and DMAI are not
maintainable under the Indian Constitution. The writ petition filed for
appeal under Article 136 and 132 before the Supreme Court is valid. The
rights and cannot unduly restrict them. It reinforces the argument that
PRAYER
PRAYER
and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to find and
declare that:
3. That the appeal filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
by petitioner/appellant is maintainable.
4. That the appellant has suffered by the loss of work due to the
New Delhi.
way of Rs 1 lakh.
And/or, pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
respectfully submitted.