Section 18. Relocation or eviction of street vendors
(1) The local authority may, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, declare a zone or part of it to be a no-vending zone for any public purpose and relocate the street vendors vending in that area, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.
(2) The local authority shall evict such street vendor whose certificate of vending has been cancelled under section 10 or who does not have a certificate of vending and vends without such certificate, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.
(3) No street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority from the place specified in the certificate of vending unless he has been given thirty days' notice for the same in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.
(4) A street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority physically in such manner as may be specified in the scheme only after he had failed to vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice.
(5) Every street vendor who fails to relocate or vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice, shall be liable to pay for every day of such default, a penalty which may extend up to two hundred and fifty rupees, as may be determined by the local authority, but shall not be more than the value of goods seized.
How courts have applied section 18
- The thirty days' notice mandated by Section 18(3) is a precondition for eviction; eviction without such notice is illegal even for vendors operating in a non-vending zone.1,2
- A vendor who breaches the conditions of a certificate, such as by erecting a permanent structure where movable structures are prohibited, is not entitled to protection under Section 18.3,4
- Where a certificate of vending has been issued, courts presume the pre-certificate survey under Section 3 was conducted, and eviction is barred until the survey and issuance of certificates are complete.5,6,7,8,9
- A writ petition based on a bare apprehension of eviction is disposed of with no further orders where the authority states in writing that it has not initiated removal proceedings and will follow the Act.10
- Where a certificate does not confer a right to a particular place, courts may dismiss a challenge to the declaration of a no-vending zone and relocation to a newly created zone.11,12
- Courts may direct the competent authority to consider a vendor's representation and pass orders in accordance with law, rather than adjudicating the eviction claim on merits.13,14
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here are mostly about the procedures and conditions that govern the relocation or eviction of street vendors under Section 18 of the Act. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that the thirty days' notice mandated by Section 18(3) is a precondition for eviction, applying that requirement even where vendors were alleged to be operating in a declared non-vending zone. In one judgement, the notice requirement was read in conjunction with the applicable State scheme, and the eviction of vendors holding valid identity cards was held illegal and arbitrary where no notice had been issued.1,2
Another recurring question was what happens when a vendor lacks a certificate or has let it lapse. Section 18(2) authorises eviction of a vendor whose certificate has been cancelled or who vends without one, and courts have held that a vendor who erected a structure in breach of the conditions of a provisional certificate was not entitled to protection, particularly where repeated challans had given notice of the violations. Conversely, where a certificate had been issued and a renewal application was pending, courts presumed, absent contrary material, that the pre-certificate survey had been conducted and restrained eviction until the renewal was decided.3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Several judgements addressed the relocation aspect of Section 18(1). Where a Town Vending Committee had delegated its powers or had declared an area a no-vending zone, courts examined whether the requirements of the section, including consultation with the committee and relocation to alternative sites, had been met. Other judgements were disposed of on directions to the authorities to consider representations, pass fresh orders, or follow due process, including giving a prior notice and opportunity of hearing before eviction. In two matters, writ petitions challenging eviction from a newly created no-vending zone were dismissed on the ground that the certificates did not contemplate the right to a particular place.15,13,14,2,11,12
A few dispositions were purely procedural or based on assurances. Where the authority stated in writing that no removal proceedings had been initiated and that any action would follow the Act's process, the petition was disposed of on that apprehension with no further orders. Similarly, petitions were withdrawn or disposed of with liberty to file afresh after the authorities confirmed the events or certified changes in circumstances. In contrast, one judgement directed the municipal corporation to revisit a decision de-notifying vending zones after highway widening was completed, emphasising the duty to restore displaced vendors to their original zones.10,16,17,18
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 18
Petitioners challenging de-notification of street vending zones in Solan after NH widening work was completed. Court held authorities must respect existing zones and refers to Supreme Court dicta on livelihood rights, directing reassessment.
DisposedOpenStreet vendor writ petition dismissed; provisional Certificate of Vending URI 7818099; Food/Snack with gas cylinder/fire; Hauz Khas Village; MCD enforcement action not illegal; Delhi Police harassment alleged; Condition 14 no permanent or temporary structure;
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenW.P.(MD)No.10268 of 2026 (with connected W.M.P(MD)No. 8069 of 2026), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, order dated 27.04.2026, Hemant Chandangoudar, J. Seven street vendors (Arumugakani, Pappa, Jeyalakshmi, Murugan, Manoharan, Murugammal, G.Chandran) v.
AllowedOpenStreet vendors; vending zone Noida Sector 57; Noida Authority allotment letters 2019; FSSAI registration; Food Safety Act 2006; Street Vendors Act 2014 Sections 18(3) and 27; harassment by Junior Engineer Mukesh Tyagi; representation to CEO Noida dated 03.06.2025;
Street vending; demolition of vending unit; Certificate of Vending conditions; semi-permanent/permanent structure prohibited; obstruction of footpaths; Section 18(3) Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; Section 6 of the 2014 Act; Stationary vs mobile vendor category;
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenA milk vendor challenged eviction by GHMC from Mansurabad Pedda Cheruvu tank bund, alleging violation of Section 18 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 after his buffaloes were seized and released on fine.
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
Street vendors' committee members sought a mandamus directing the District Collector to consult the Town Vending Committee before finalizing an alternative site for relocated street vendors in Trichy. The court directed consideration of the representation within six months.
AllowedOpenstreet vendors Chandigarh; certificate of vending cancellation; Town Vending Committee delegation of powers to Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner; Section 10 Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014; Section 11 statutory appeal; Rule 12 Rules of 2015;
DisposedOpenShort unadjudicated disposal: street vendors' writ petition (W.P.(C) 31028/2024, Orissa HC, order 24.02.2025) seeking relocation direction against Cuttack Municipal Corporation under Section 18, Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, withdrawn along with I.A.
WithdrawnOpenWrit petition by 25 street vendors of Chandrabhaga Road side, Konark (holders of Street Vending Identity Cards of 2020), seeking protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and restraint on eviction till rehabilitation in a suitable vending zone.
DismissedOpenStreet vendor eviction and relocation; Chandrabhaga Road side, Konark, Puri; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 — Sections 3, 4, 38;
DismissedOpenW.P.(C) No. 7861 of 2024, High Court of Orissa, decided 20.02.2025 (K.R. Mohapatra & S.K. Mishra, JJ.) - Basudeb Pradhan v. State of Odisha - street vendor tea shop near Reliance Fresh, Station Bazar, Master Canteen Square, Bhubaneswar - expired Certificate of Street Vending (issued 01.08.2020, token No.60009) -…
DisposedOpen
W.P.(C) No.7890 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 20.02.2025 (K.R. Mohapatra and S.K. Mishra, JJ.) — street vendor; certificate of street vending issued 01.08.2020, valid till 01.08.2021; token No.411453; renewal application dated 20.03.2024 pending before Town Vending Committee;
DisposedOpenOrissa High Court, W.P.(C) No. 7888 of 2024, decided 20.02.2025 (K.R. Mohapatra and S.K. Mishra, JJ.). Tea and betel shop street vendor near Master Canteen Square, Bhubaneswar sought protection from eviction by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (OP Nos.2 & 3) and BDA (OP No.4) despite expired Certificate of Street…
DisposedOpenBijay Pradhan v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 7923 OF 2024 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 20.02.2025, K.R. Mohapatra and S.K. Mishra, JJ.): tea-stall street vendor near Station Bazar, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar; restraint on eviction by BMC/BDA;
DisposedOpenstreet vendor; certificate of street vending; renewal application; Town Vending Committee; BMC; BDA; eviction; relocation; vending zone; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014 Sections 3(1), 3(3), 18;
DisposedOpenStreet vendors' union sought a mandamus to stop removal of shops on Besant Road, Vijayawada without prior notice under the Street Vendors Act. The municipality stated no removal action had been initiated and due process would be followed; the court disposed of the writ petition as no further orders were necessary.
DisposedOpenPetitioners sought writs against eviction of their shops by Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation without prior notice under the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The court directed respondents to follow due procedure, including hearing petitioners, before proceeding with eviction.
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Petitioners ran meat and other shops from kiosks on a public footpath at Haldwani. After an eviction notice, their structures were demolished before the writ petitions could be heard.
DisposedOpenMeat-shop owners at Haldwani challenged eviction notices and demolition by Nagar Nigam, claiming protection under the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The court found no title over State land and disposed of the petitions directing authorities to examine rehabilitation claims within four months.
DisposedOpenThis writ petition challenged eviction of shopkeepers by Haldwani Municipal Corporation. The court addressed claims under the Street Vendors Act and directed authorities to examine the petitioners' rehabilitation claims within four months without deciding on the legality of eviction in this appeal.
DisposedOpenSeveral writ petitions challenged the eviction of petitioners from shops in Haldwani and the subsequent demolition of structures. While noting the lack of title and no substantive record regarding their status under the Street Vendors Act, the Court directed municipal authorities to examine claims for rehabilitation…
DisposedOpen