HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4989 of 2007 Date:25.08.2011 Between: I.Narsing Rao and six others ..... Petitioners AND The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Reptd., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri L.Ravichander Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri C.Damodar Reddy Standing Counsel for GHMC Counsel for Respondent No.2: AGP for General Administration The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing for relocation and rehabilitation and proceeding to evict the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not fall within the definition of the term “hawkers” and if necessary also declare the definition of hawkers in G.O.Ms.No.398, dated 25.09.2004 as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 and the constitutional guarantees contained in 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue consequential direction not to evict the petitioners from Kothi, near Director of Medical and Health Services, Opposite to Government Women’s college until or otherwise relocated and rehabilitated in the manner as spelt out n the National Policy for Urban Street Vendors” At the hearing, it is agreed by learned counsel for the parties that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 26.03.2007, of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3040 of 2007, wherein this Court has inter alia held as under: - “We have given serious thought to the respective arguments. Since the petitioners have not filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit, we shall proceed on the premise that they do not fall in the category of hawkers. As a matter of fact, they have come forward with the plea that they have been doing business by occupying footpaths. It is common knowledge that with the ever growing population and manifold increase in traffic, footpath vending has become a major traffic hurdle, forcing the pedestrians to walk on the road meant for vehicular traffic. With the limited space available, it is not possible for the respondent-Corporation to provide alternative sites to every petty vendor doing business on footpaths. Indeed, the petitioners have not produced any material before the Court to show that alternative places are available for allotment to them. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondent-Corporation to accommodate the petitioners by providing them with alternative sites and the impugned notices cannot be termed as illegal. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, keeping in view the statement made by Sri A. Satya Prasad, we direct that if the petitioners’ or anyone of them make application for grant of hawkers licence, then such application shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority of the Corporation within two weeks keeping in view the hawkers policy framed in furtherance of the directions given by the Court in Writ Petition No.20228 of 2005.” Having regard to the above, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the said order with the direction that the reasons and directions contained therein shall form part of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.6385 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25thAugust, 2011 DR