Ajay Choudhary vs. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation Through Its Municipal Commissioner

Facts

The petitioners, street vendors selling fish and chicken, had their shop allotments in Khadgarha Market, Ranchi cancelled by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through letters dated July 2, 2020. These allotments were made on October 26, 2019, following a lottery process after the enactment of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The petitioners had deposited rent and taken possession, making investments in their shops. The cancellation was based on an inquiry report alleging malpractices, including multiple allotments to the same family and a lower rent than prevailing rates, which the petitioners contested. The private respondents argued that the lottery notice was not widely circulated, depriving them of participation.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioners argued for adherence to natural justice and the validity of the allotment process, the facts and circumstances indicated serious procedural lapses. The authorities had not widely circulated the notice for public auction, leading to a procedural lapse that deprived needy persons of participation. The Court agreed with the proposition that cancellation of an entire selection process should not be done routinely, but in this case, the procedural lapse was significant and could not be cured by cancelling individual allotments. Therefore, the cancellation of the entire allotment process by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner was justified. The Court found the writ petition to be devoid of merit. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition, upholding the cancellation of the allotments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of shop allotments by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, vide letters dated July 2, 2020, was in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing? 2. Whether the allotment process, which led to the cancellation, was conducted in a manner that was arbitrary, whimsical, without jurisdiction, and against the object of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014? Petitioner's arguments: The impugned letters were issued without providing an opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice. The shops are the sole source of livelihood, and significant investments have been made. The cancellation was arbitrary, whimsical, and without jurisdiction, contrary to the Act's objectives. The allotment followed the Scheme's Clause 20.5 regarding lottery, and the inquiry report had infirmities. The lottery notice was in the public domain, refuting claims of lack of public notice. Respondent-RMC's arguments: A complaint of malpractices led to the formation of an inquiry committee, which found multiple allotments to the same family and recommended cancellation. The shops were constructed with government funds for street vendors as a welfare measure. The cancellation was based on this report. Private respondents' arguments: The lottery notice was not widely circulated, preventing their participation. The allotment suffered from favoritism and lack of transparency, as corroborated by the inquiry report. Therefore, the cancellation by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner was justified.