The Madras High Court has directed the State authorities and the Greater Chennai Corporation to take swift action against unauthorized street vendors and food trucks operating on the 4th Main Road in Besant Nagar, Chennai.

The Counsel’s Argument:

Appearing for a long-time resident, Mr. Rahul Jagannathan delivered a sharp, fact-based offensive against the mushrooming food truck culture on the 4th Main Road. His arguments focused on the stark contrast between the area’s peaceful past and its chaotic present.

1. A 18-Year Peace Shattered Jagannathan highlighted that for nearly two decades, the petitioner lived a tranquil life. The 4th Main Road was synonymous with cleanliness and zero parking woes—until the end of 2021. The “invasion,” he argued, began with a single entity—the Madras Food Truck—which acted as a catalyst for an uncontrolled influx of vendors throughout 2022.
2. The Shield of “Interim Protection” In a clever legal maneuver, several food truck operators had previously obtained a court order in early 2023. This order restrained the Corporation from taking “coercive steps” until the Town Vending Committee (TVC) was formed.

However, Mr Rahul Jagannathan argued that this protection was being weaponized. He contended that vendors were using a procedural delay in the formation of the committee as a “permanent license” to bypass local laws, operating without a shred of approval or official permit.

3. Total Contravention of Local Laws Mr Rahul Jagannathan asserted that the vendors were in complete contravention of municipal regulations. He argued that the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood Regulation) Act, 2014 was never intended to be a “get out of jail free” card for those causing:

• Heavy Crowding: Making the road impassable for residents.
• Parking Paralysis: Turning a residential street into a commercial lot.
• Hygiene Hazards: Compromising the cleanliness of the locality.

Conclusion

The ruling serves as a vital judicial recalibration of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood Regulation) Act, 2014. While the Act is designed to safeguard the vulnerable against arbitrary eviction, the Court clarified that it does not provide a statutory “immunity” for unauthorized commercial expansion at the expense of urban planning and residential rights.

By accepting the arguments of Mr. Rahul Jagannathan, the Court affirmed that the “right to livelihood” under Article 21 must be harmonized with the community’s right to a clean, safe, and navigable environment. The Bench’s direction to remove vendors operating without a Certificate of Vending underscores a critical legal precedent: procedural protections under the Act are contingent upon compliance with the law, not a substitute for it. Ultimately, the order restores the primacy of the Town Vending Committee’s regulatory framework, ensuring that the “right to the city” remains a balanced equity between those who trade upon its streets and those who reside beside them.

#MadrasHighCourt #StreetVendorsAct #IllegalVendors #ChennaiCorporation #LegalUpdate #CityRegulations #TamilNaduNews #CourtOrder #CivicIssues