Sudarshan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Sudarshan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Clarificatory direction: the petitioners' eviction may be undertaken by the authorities only in accordance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, i.e., with prior due notice; action already taken without notice is unsustainable; the writ petition is disposed of on this basis.

¶judgment para 8

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties may close/demolish the petitioners' licensed street-vending units and evict them without following the due procedure prescribed by the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, particularly the notice and relocation requirements of Section 18. +1 more

¶judgment para 4

Court's answer

This Court finds there is no dispute that the petitioners are carrying on business as street vendors holding vending licences granted by the competent authority.

¶judgment para 6

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioners carry on business as per the licence granted by the authority, their eviction must be effected by taking steps as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

¶judgment para 6

Key takeaways

If the authority wants to evict the petitioners, steps must first be taken by giving due notice.ratio¶judgment para 7
Since the requisite notice has not been given in the present case, any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.ratio¶judgment para 7
It remains open to the opposite parties to take the necessary eviction/relocation steps in consonance with the provisions of Section 18 of the 2014 Act by following due procedure of law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack — W.P.(C) No.16668 of 2023 (Sudarshan Sahoo & others v. State of Odisha and others), disposed of on 21.02.2024 (Bench: Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Mr. Justice M.S. Sahoo). Licensed street vendors whose eviction/demolition of vending units is contemplated cannot be proceeded against except in accordance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; eviction steps must commence with due notice to the vendor, failing which any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in law. The opposite parties were left free to undertake eviction/relocation thereafter strictly per Section 18 and due procedure of law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.16668 of 2023

Sudarshan Sahoo & others

….. Petitioners

Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate

Vs.

….. State of Odisha and others Opp.Parties

Mr. A.K.Sharma, AGA Mr.B. K. Sahoo, Advocate (O.P.No.3)

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M. S. SAHOO

ORDER

21.02.2024

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners, claiming to be a street vender have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties not to demolish their shops without following due procedure of law as envisaged under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and allow them to continue their vending units as a Street Vendor.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are carrying on their small business as a street vendor in order to sustain their livelihood. As such, their business units have not in any way affected the general public and traffic movement. The petitioners are continuing their street vending business in accordance with the Street Vending Act, 2014 and have followed the procedure and instructions. But now steps have been taken for closing down the shops, which will affect their right to life. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is contended that before closing down the

Page 1 of 3

same, at least the petitioners be relocated and, as such, eviction should be done by following due procedure, as envisaged under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The same having not been adhered to, the action of the authority is illegal and arbitrary.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that due to unauthorized occupation of the land by the street vendors, obstruction on the road has been caused and, therefore, in the interest of public at large, steps have been taken for eviction of the petitioner. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in taking steps for eviction of the petitioners.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that there is no dispute before us to the extent that the petitioners are carrying on business as a street vendor having vending license granted by the competent authority. The contention of the opposite parties that the continuance of the petitioners, by encroaching upon the Government land, is causing difficulties to local public, has not yet been refuted. But the fact remains, if the petitioners are carrying on business, as per the license granted by the authority, for their eviction, the authority has to take steps as per the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which reads as under:-

“18. Payment of maintenance charges:

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

Page 2 of 3

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.

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.”

In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is made clear that if the authority wants to evict the petitioners, steps should be taken by giving due notice. The same having not been taken in the present case, any action taken by the authority, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. However, it is open to the opposite parties to take necessary steps in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and do the needful by following due procedure of law.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

(M.S. SAHOO) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified Ashok/Gs

Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 26-Feb-2024 10:48:59

Page 3 of 3