Disposed

Aneesha Abdul Salim, v. Divisional Forest Officer

Kerala HC15 Feb 2019WP(C)/2815/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged forest authorities' intimidation regarding her mobile food stall in a reserved forest area, citing street vendor protections. Court held it could not adjudicate vendor status or prior presence but directed respondent to dispose of petitioner's representation after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was directed to take up Exhibit-P3 and dispose of it after affording an opportunity of being heard.

Aneesha Abdul Salim, Vs Divisional Forest Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2815 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ANEESHA ABDUL SALIM, AGED 35 YEARS W/O ABDUL SALIM, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, VALARA P.O.X MILE, ADIMALI- 685 561.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, O/O OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI-685 612.

¶11

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.SANDEESH RAJA-SPL.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 2815 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner’s assertion is that she is operating a Mobile Food stall on the side of the PWD Road at Cheeyappara at Iduki. She alleges that she is now being intimidated and threatened by the Forest Authorities and that she has been asked to move her stall from that area on the allegation that it is a Reserved Forest and she contends that this action is contrary to the provisions of the Street Vendors Protection of Lively Hood Regulation Act (herein after referred to as “Act” for short). The petitioner's specific factual assertion is that she and her husband have been running a shop for the last more than a decade in the area in question and, therefore, that she is entitled to the protection of the Act.

¶19

Sri.Sandesh Raja, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that a statement has been filed on record wherein, it is clearly stated that they are not aware of the petitioner or her husband operating any Mobile Stall in this area and that, to their information, they are not engaged in any such business in that area even for a day. He further adds that that the petitioner had

¶20

WP(C).No. 2815 of 2019

¶21

¶22

attempted to approach the Forest Authorities, a few days prior to the filing of this writ petition, seeking permission to conduct the stall but that no such request has been allowed until now. According to him, such a stall, in normal circumstances, cannot be allowed in this area, since it is a Reserved Forest and the road, though maintained by the PWD, is under the supervision of the Forest Department, because it is running through the Reserved Forest.

¶23

On a consideration of the afore circumstances, it becomes obvious that an adjudication as to whether the petitioner is a street vendor or whether she has been in the area for the last “decade” as claimed by her, are issues into which this Court cannot enter, going by the constraints of jurisdiction, while acting under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

When I disclosed my mind as afore at the Bar, Smt.Mareena, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, says that this Court need not go in to these issues at this stage but that she confines her prayer that Exhibit-P3 representation made by her client be directed to be disposed of by the respondent. To this request Sri. Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader submits that they have no objection in

¶25

WP(C).No. 2815 of 2019

¶26

¶27

considering Exhibit-P3, but that they will do so only as per law and that the resultant order will also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶28

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the respondent to take up Exhibit-P3 representation and dispose it of, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible and communicate the resultant order to the petitioner without any avoidable delay.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶31

Dxy

¶32

WP(C).No. 2815 of 2019

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF PETITIONERS VEHICLE

¶37

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE AND PERMIT

¶38

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THIS PETITIONER DATED 2.1.2019 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT

Aneesha Abdul Salim, v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesha Abdul Salim, v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaju Vs the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank

The Federal Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar

Leela.K Vs Babu

K.P.Peter, Vs Abhilash

C.Madhavan Vs the Authorized Officer/Assistant General Manager

A.C.Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala