Street vendors filed a writ petition challenging coercive evictions by the Changanacherry Municipality. The petitioners claimed rehabilitation was required under previous court orders and the 2014 Street Vending Act. The Court dismissed the petition, holding no law requires business in crowded areas and the municipality offered alternative sites.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2015/31ST ASHADHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 3750 of 2015 (P)
PETITIONER(S):
1. P.T. JOSE, PUTHUVELI, PUTHOORPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY.
2. ABBAS K.S., PUTHUVELIL, MALOORKKAVU, CHANGANACHERRY.
3. SHAIJU SHERIF, PUTHUPPARAMBU, NERCHAPPARA, CHANGANACHERRY.
4. G.V.DAS, PANDARAVILAYIL, MAMMOOD, CHANGANACHERRY.
5. BABU P.T., PUTHUVELIL, VANDIPETTA, CHANGANACHERRY.
BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101.
3. THE SECRETARY, CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101.
R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR, SMT.R.S.MANJULA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2015, THE COURT ON 22/07/2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 3750 of 2015 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
| EXT.P1 : | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04-09-2000 IN O.P. NO. 2412/2000. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 : | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-07-2002 IN O.P. NO. 2818/2002. |
| EXT.P3 : | TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)2616/03/LSGD DATED 16-07-2003. |
| EXT.P4 : | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY 3RD PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BEFORE R3 AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| EXT.P5 : | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12-03-2014 FROM THE ENGINEERING SECTION AND ITS TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH. |
| EXT.P6 : | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18-03-2014 FROM REVENUE SECTION AND ITS TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH. |
| EXT.P7 : | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21-03-2014 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH SECTION AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| EXT.P8 : | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY ITS RECEIPT AND THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE REPRESENTATION. |
| EXT.P9 : | TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL POLICY ON URBAN STREET VENDORS, 2004 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. |
| EXT.P10 : | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O.1185(E) DATED 01-05-2014. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
W.P.(C) No. 3750 of 2015
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by the coercive action initiated by the respondent municipality against the petitioners, who are street vendors, the petitioners have come up before this Court.
W.P.(C) No. 3750 of 2015
..2..
municipality is against Exts.P1 & P2 judgments and Ext.P3 Government Order. Exts.P1 & P2 judgments entitle the petitioners adequate rehabilitation before being evicted and the eviction of the petitioners was sought for by the municipality to erect new bunk shops in those places and to allot the same to some other people; it is alleged. The attempt of the municipality is also against the specific provisions contained in the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; and it is also against the policy of the Central and State Governments on street vendors; according to the petitioners. Hence, they have come up before this Court.
W.P.(C) No. 3750 of 2015
..3..
the margins of a wide footpath starting from Changanacherry Municipality No.1 bus stand to PMJ Complex is also incorrect. According to them, the petitioners are unauthorized occupants, who are doing illegal business in the Municipal Bus Stand yard area. The municipality is not against the rehabilitation of the existing street vendors including the petitioners, who, according to them, are encroachers. It is further stated that for the rehabilitation of street vendors, the municipality has identified two locations, viz., T.B.Road and around Municipal Stadium. However, the petitioners want to do business in the most congested and crowded places like M.C. Road, entrances of 3 bus stand etc. and they are not prepared to do business in the area identified by the municipality for rehabilitation. The municipality is even now ready to provide rehabilitation facilities either in T.B.Road area or around the Municipal Stadium, which, according to the respondent municipality, are also equally important from commercial
..4..
W.P.(C) No. 3750 of 2015
point of view. The municipality, in its earnest efforts, have constituted the street vending committee and the earmarking of public place for the street vending is in progress. They point out that the M.C. Road is the most crowded and traffic congested road connecting Angamaly and Thiruvananthapuram, which is having a width of 15 meters only. Because of the traffic population and narrow width of the road, accidents are quite frequent in the Changanacherry Municipal Bus Stand area. As per the Municipal Council resolution, the municipality has allotted the land to 11 persons for establishment of 11 bunks in the municipal bus stand. These 11 persons were identified through public auction, in which more than 100 persons participated. However, the petitioners did not participate in the said public auction; and ultimately, the space was allotted to the successful highest bidders; and one shop space was allotted to a man free of rent as ordered by the Human Rights Commission. It is further stated that because of the unauthorized occupation by the
..5..
W.P.(C) No. 3750 of 2015
petitioners, the newly allotted bunk shop owners are not able to construct bunk shops in the bus stand. The respondent municipality has taken the stand that the writ petition is devoid of merits; and the petitioners are disguising themselves as street vendors, who, in fact, are unauthorized occupants raising false claims and statements.
W.P.(C) No. 3750 of 2015
..6..
petitioners is that steps have been initiated by the respondent municipality to vacate the places without rehabilitating them in violation of Exts.P1 & P2 judgments. It was pointed out that it is also in violation of Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. It was further pointed out that the respondents have not constituted town vending committees as provided under Section 22 of the aforesaid Act; and they have also not conducted any survey as provided under Section 3(1) of the said Act.
W.P.(C) No. 3750 of 2015
..7..
place and is not an appropriate place for rehabilitation of street traders.
..8..
W.P.(C) No. 3750 of 2015
now, the respondent municipality is ready to provide rehabilitation facilities in the aforesaid places.
In the result, the writ petition fails; and accordingly,
it is dismissed.
Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
bka/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether street vendors can demand to conduct business in crowded areas obstructing traffic when the municipality offers alternative rehabilitation sites.
Whether the writ petitioners have legal right to resist eviction without vacating the places as they are encroachers not complying with public auction.
If the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 bars the eviction of street vendors without prior rehabilitation.
P.T. JOSE
ABBAS K.S.
SHAIJU SHERIF
G.V.DAS
BABU P.T.
STATE OF KERALA
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
