Purusottam Rana Vs the State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Purusottam Rana Vs the State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the clarification that eviction of the licensee street vendor requires due notice under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and that any action without such notice is unsustainable; liberty left to the opposite parties to proceed afresh in consonance with Section 18 by following due procedure of law; interim order passed earlier vacated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties can demolish/evict the petitioner's street vending shop without following the due procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including issuance of due 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; consequently, for his eviction the authority must take steps as per Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

Ratio / Principle

Where the authority wants to evict the petitioner, steps must be taken by giving due notice; since no such notice was taken in the present case, any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Key takeaways

It remains open to the opposite parties to take necessary steps in consonance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 by following due procedure of law.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 — Section 18 — Eviction of licensed street vendor — mandatory procedure of due notice. The petitioner, claiming to be a street vendor holding a vending licence granted by the competent authority, filed a writ petition seeking a direction not to demolish his shop without following due procedure and to allow him to continue his vending unit. The Court found no dispute that the petitioner carried on business under a valid vending licence, and observed that the State's contention that his continuance by encroaching on Government land caused difficulty to the local public remained unrefuted; however, even so, eviction had to follow the procedure under Section 18. Held: if the authority wants to evict the petitioner, steps must be taken by giving due notice; the same not having been done, any action taken cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The opposite parties were left free to take necessary steps in consonance with Section 18 by following due procedure of law. Writ petition disposed of; interim order passed earlier vacated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.29271 of 2023

Purusottam Rana

….. Petitioner

Mr. S. C. Puspalaka, Advocate

Vs.

State of Odisha and others

Opposite Parties

Mr. A. K. Nanda, AGA Mr. B. Dash, Advocate for O.P.3

CORAM:

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

ORDER

22.02.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

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 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.

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

Page 1 of 3

(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 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 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:-

“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

Page 2 of 3

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 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.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Jyostna/Ashok

(M.S. SAHOO) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Designation: PA(SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE) Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Feb-2024 15:08:08

Page 3 of 3