The Meghalaya High Court is scheduled to conduct a crucial hearing on August 5 to examine claims of wrongful revocation of street vendor licences, a matter that has gained significant attention due to its impact on the livelihoods of numerous hawkers operating in the state capital, Shillong.The hearing stems from complaints made by street vendors who claim that their valid licences were cancelled without due process, leaving them excluded from official relocation drives. Many of these affected vendors previously operated in Police Bazar, one of Shillong’s busiest commercial zones, and were expecting to be shifted to designated vending areas as per the government’s directives. The matter is being considered under a broader public interest litigation (PIL) concerning street vending policies in the city. The PIL seeks to ensure a fair balance between maintaining civic order and protecting the rights of vendors, particularly those who have complied with legal norms and registration procedures.
Earlier, the Meghalaya government informed the court that all licensed vendors had been relocated by the July 22 deadline to new vending zones. This was in accordance with a High Court directive that had temporarily extended their permission to operate in Police Bazar until suitable alternative sites were made available. Despite this, several vendors have approached the court claiming that their licences were revoked arbitrarily and without proper reasoning, effectively barring them from being part of the official relocation process. These grievances are now expected to be addressed in detail during the August 5 proceedings. Legal experts note that the outcome of the hearing could set an important precedent for vendor rights and administrative transparency. If the court finds that licences were indeed cancelled unfairly, the state government may be directed to reinstate the affected hawkers or offer compensation.
The larger debate surrounding public vending zones in Shillong remains contentious, with ongoing friction between street vendors, local shopkeepers, and urban authorities. While the government maintains that relocation is necessary to prevent congestion and ensure orderly public spaces, activists and legal representatives argue that any move must uphold the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which guarantees fair treatment and proper rehabilitation. Now that the MC(PIL) No. 2 of 2025 has been disposed of, the focus is firmly on the upcoming hearing. For many street vendors, this represents a critical opportunity to seek justice and reassert their right to earn a living in the face of what they describe as bureaucratic overreach.