RAJU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Puspalaka, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, impugned is order dtd. 6/3/2023 made by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC). He submits, the order was made in complete violation of provisions in Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. He demonstrates from impugned order that survey was not made by the Town Vending Committee. Allegation of declaring the area as 'no vending zone' could not have been made. There has been refusal to issue certificates of vending. Provisions of, inter alia, Sec. 3 and 18 stand violated. He seeks interference.

(2.) Mr. Muduli, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3. He submits, there is unmanageable congestion caused due to the carriageway occupied by petitioners, claiming to be vendors. Immediate steps are to be taken for purpose of easing the congestion.

(3.) Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicants/interveners. He submits, his clients are opposed to the congestion being caused by the vendors.