Gurugram: In a dramatic reversal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s May 2025 order that had dismissed a plea seeking the eviction of street vendors from Chandigarh’s Manimajra locality and even penalised the petitioners, the Supreme Court Tuesday gave the city authorities a stern 48-hour deadline to clear encroachments in the area.
The SC bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, passed the directive while hearing a special leave petition filed by Malkit Singh, president of Manimajra Vyapar Mandal, and the Residential Welfare Association challenging the high court’s 23 May judgement that had come down heavily on the petitioners. The HC had penalised the petitioners with costs of Rs 50,000 each and made pointed observations about “elite class” mentality.
In its order issued Tuesday, the SC, however, directed that “the vendors shall positively remove their vending wares within next 48 hours and shift to the allotted sites in the vending zone”.
“Such of those, who have yet not been allotted sites within the vending zone, shall pursue the matter with the authority concerned which shall be decided in accordance with law.”
“Needless to add, the authority shall also carry out a special drive for removing all encroachments and removing such of those vendors who are selling their wares at unauthorised sites,” it added.
The court has directed the city authorities to file an affidavit of compliance on 18 December.
Before Tuesday’s order, the Supreme Court Monday appointed senior advocate Anant Palli as amicus curiae after none appeared on behalf of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Estate Officer or Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP).
Notably, the apex court had stayed the HC’s May order in August this year.
What HC had ordered
On 23 May, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had come down heavily on the petitioners who pleaded for removal of fruit vendors and hawkers from public pathways.
Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta, in their strongly-worded judgment, had dismissed the plea as a “prima facie motivated petition” aimed at destabilising the livelihood of street vendors.
The shopkeepers, in their civil writ petition before the HC, had complained that the vendors had been occupying public ways near the local bus stand, Rana Haveli, a primary school, police beat box and main bazar in Manimajra, causing traffic congestion and adversely affecting their businesses.
In the Supreme Court, they challenged the HC order on multiple grounds through a special leave petition.
They contended that the HC had erred in making personal and scathing remarks against them and argued that such observations were contrary to Supreme Court directives cautioning judges against making personal remarks in judicial orders.
According to the petitioners, the HC judgement violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. They emphasised that they had merely exercised their constitutional right to seek legal remedy, yet the court’s observations had subjected them to public ridicule.
The petitioners said the court had also failed to consider the specific circumstances of the location in question while dismissing their petition. They pointed out that the main road in Manimajra has a civil hospital, a children’s park, government school and a bus stand, all of which generate a heavy rush of people and require clear pathways.
The encroachment by numerous vendors on this public road was causing severe traffic congestion, making it difficult for ambulances to reach the hospital and creating hazardous conditions for school children and commuters, they stated.
Supporting their plea with photographic evidence, the petitioners maintained that many vendors operating on the road were non-essential service providers selling clothes, accessories and other articles. According to the applicable regulations, such vendors should be restricted to designated vending zones, but the HC had failed to appreciate this.
The petitioners further highlighted that in the municipal corporation’s own records, the area near the Manimajra bus stand in Sector 13 had been specifically rejected as a vending zone.
The petitioners also complained that they had faced severe consequences following the HC’s May judgement. Several media outlets and newspapers had picked up the order and prominently reported the court’s observations about “elite class” behaviour. This widespread circulation had caused them to face ridicule in society, affecting their reputation and standing.
The petitioners also pointed out that the HC had dismissed their petition without considering that only the municipal corporation had filed a reply in the matter, while respondents 1, 4 and 5—the UT administration, Estate Officer and SSP—had not responded despite being served with legal notices by the petitioners. They argued that this one-sided consideration violated principles of natural justice.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Street vendors face constant threat of eviction. Valid licences & law to protect them don’t help