Disposed¶33

Sarat Chandra Khuntia v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Feb 2024WP(C)/191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vendor eviction and demolition; due procedure; Section 18, Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; thirty days' notice before relocation/eviction; no-vending zone; Town Vending Committee; certificate/vending licence; relocation before closure; action without notice unsustainable; Odisha High Court Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.191 of 2024; decided 20.02.2024; Sarat Chandra Khuntia v. State of Odisha; writ petition disposed; interim order vacated; Dr. B.R. Sarangi; M.S. Sahoo.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the clarification that any eviction of the petitioner must follow Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 with due notice; the interim order passed earlier stands vacated. ¶33

Sarat Chandra Khuntia Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties may demolish/close down the petitioner's street vending unit without following the due procedure of law envisaged under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

This Court found no dispute that the petitioner is carrying on business as a street vendor having a vending license granted by the competent authority.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

If the authority wants to evict the petitioner, steps must be taken by giving due notice; since such steps were not taken in the present case, any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶31

Key takeaways

It remains 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.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Cuttack), W.P.(C) No.191 of 2024, decided 20.02.2024 — Sarat Chandra Khuntia v. State of Odisha & others (coram: Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Mr. Justice M.S. Sahoo). A street vendor holding a vending licence granted by the competent authority sought directions that his shop not be demolished/closed except by due procedure. The Court held that eviction of the licensee vendor must be effected strictly per Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 — which requires due notice (sub-s. 18(3): thirty days' notice before relocation/eviction) — and, since no such notice-based steps had been taken, 'any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law'. The opposite parties remained free to proceed in consonance with Section 18 by following due procedure of law. The writ petition was disposed of and the interim order passed earlier was vacated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.191 of 2024

¶3

Sarat Chandra Khuntia

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Odisha & others

¶8

….. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. A.K. Sharmal, AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

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

ORDER 20.02.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

The same having not been adhered to, the action of the authority is illegal and arbitrary.

¶21

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 petitioner.

¶22

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 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:-

¶23

“18. Payment of maintenance charges:

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

4. A street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

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.

¶30

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.”

¶31

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.

¶32

Arun/Gs

¶33

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Interim order passed
earlier stands vacated.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. SAHOO)
JUDGE

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 26-Feb-2024 10:19:01

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Sarat Chandra Khuntia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarat Chandra Khuntia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Board of Management Vs Ajay Ku.Behera

Ruby Pradhan Vs Ganesh Ch.Nayak

Mehul Mishra Vs Minati Panda

Sarita Khuntia Vs State of Odisha

Parbati Samal Vs State of Odisha

Ramakanta Mohanty Vs State of Odisha