Parbati Samal Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Parbati Samal Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the clarification that any eviction of the petitioner must be carried out by giving due notice in accordance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; the interim order passed earlier stands vacated, and the authorities are left free to proceed afresh per due process.

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite party authorities can demolish/evict the petitioner's licensed street-vending unit without following the due procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including service of the requisite notice.

Court's answer

It is undisputed that the petitioner carries on business as a street vendor holding a vending licence granted by the competent authority; hence her eviction must be effected in accordance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.

Ratio / Principle

If the authority wants to evict the petitioner, steps must be taken by giving due notice as required under Section 18 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.

Key takeaways

Since the requisite notice/procedure under Section 18 was not followed in the present case, any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.ratio¶30
It remains open to the opposite parties to take necessary steps in consonance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 and do the needful by following due procedure of law.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Street vendor with a vending licence granted by the competent authority approached the Orissa High Court seeking restraint against demolition/eviction of her vending unit otherwise than by due process. The Court held that where a licensee street vendor is to be evicted, the authority must act strictly in accordance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which mandates service of the prescribed (thirty days') notice before relocation or eviction. As no such notice was given, any action taken by the authority could not be sustained in the eye of law. The writ petition was disposed of, the earlier interim order stood vacated, and liberty was left to the authorities to take necessary steps in consonance with Section 18 by following due procedure of law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.194 of 2024

Parbati Samal

Petitioner

Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

Vs.

State of Odisha & others

….. Opposite Parties

Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate (O.P.No.2)

CORAM:

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

ORDER

20.02.2024

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 02.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, claiming to be a street vender has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties not to demolish her 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 her to continue her vending unit as a Street Vendor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is carrying on her small business as a street vendor in order to sustain her livelihood. As such, her business unit has not in any way affected the general public and traffic movement. The petitioner is continuing her 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 her 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,

Page 1 of 3

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

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.

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 her 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 certificate of vending unless he has been given thirty days’ notice for the same in such manner as may be

Page 2 of 3

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 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.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

Arun/Gs

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. SAHOO)
JUDGE

Signature Not Verified

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

Page 3 of 3