Disposed¶31

Bijaya Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Feb 2024WP(C)/167/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

street vendor; vending license/certificate of vending; demolition and eviction of shop; Section 18 Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; due notice before relocation/eviction; no-vending zone; Town Vending Committee; Government land encroachment; livelihood; Orissa High Court at Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.167 of 2023; writ petition disposed 16.02.2024; Sarangi and Sahoo; interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with clarification that any eviction of the petitioner must follow due procedure under Section 18 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 including giving of due notice; the interim order passed earlier stands vacated. ¶31

Bijaya Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's licensed street-vending unit may be closed down/evicted by the opposite parties otherwise than in accordance with the due procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including giving of due notice before eviction.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

No dispute exists that the petitioner is carrying on business as a street vendor having vending license granted by the competent authority.

¶21

Key takeaways

Because the petitioner carries on business under a license granted by the competent authority, his eviction can be effected only through steps taken as per the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.ratio¶21
If the authority wants to evict the petitioner, the requisite steps must be taken by giving due notice.ratio¶30
Since the due notice was not taken in the present case, any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No.167 of 2023, disposed of on 16.02.2024 (bench: Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice M.S. Sahoo). Petitioner Bijaya Kumar Nayak, a street vendor holding a vending license granted by the competent authority, sought protection of his vending unit from demolition/eviction otherwise than per due procedure. The Court found no dispute as to his licensed vending status; the State-opposite parties' contention that his encroaching continuance caused obstruction/difficulty to the local public remained unrefuted. Court held that, being licensed, the petitioner can be evicted only through steps taken as per Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (quoted in extenso: declaration of no-vending zone/relocation, eviction of cancelled/un-certificated vendors, and relocation/eviction only after notice — thirty days' notice per the quoted sub-rule — and only after failure to vacate, failing which a daily penalty capped at Rs. 250 applies). Since the due notice had not been given, any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in law; the opposite parties were left free to take steps anew in consonance with Section 18 by following due procedure. Writ petition disposed of; interim order earlier passed vacated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.167 of 2023

¶3

Bijaya Kumar Nayak

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

….. State of Odisha and another Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA Mr. A. Dash, Advocate for O.P.2

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

16.02.2024

¶13

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

¶14

04.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The petitioner, claiming to be a street vender has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties not to demolish his shop without following due procedure of law as envisaged under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and allow him to continue his vending unit as a Street Vendor.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is carrying on his small business as a street vendor in order to sustain his livelihood. As such, his business unit has not in any way affected the general public and traffic movement. The petitioner is continuing his street vending business in accordance with the Street Vending Act, 2014 and has followed the procedure and instructions. But now steps have been taken for closing down the shop, which will affect his right to life. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is contended that before closing down the same, at least the petitioner be relocated and, as such, eviction should be done by following due procedure, as envisaged under Section 18 of the Street Vendors

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

(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.

¶20

Learned counsel 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 petitioner.

¶21

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 petitioner is carrying on business as a street vendor having vending license granted by the competent authority. The contention of the State-opposite parties that the continuance of the petitioner, by encroaching upon the Government land, is causing difficulties to local public, has not yet been refuted. But the fact remains, if the petitioner is carrying on business, as per the license granted by the authority, for his 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:-

¶22

“18. Payment of maintenance charges:

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

days’ notice for the same in such manner as may be specified in the scheme.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.”

¶30

In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is made clear that if the authority wants to evict the petitioner, 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.

¶31