Disposed¶33

Sumanta Rout v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Feb 2024WP(C)/34097/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

street vendors; eviction; demolition of shops; vending licence; Section 18 Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014; due notice before eviction; relocation; no-vending zone; Town Vending Committee; certificate of vending cancelled under section 10; encroachment on Government land; public obstruction; Odisha; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the clarification that the opposite parties may proceed against the petitioners' vending units only by giving due notice and in consonance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, following due procedure of law; action taken without such notice cannot be sustained. ¶33

Sumanta Rout Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties can demolish/close the petitioners' street vending shops and evict them without following the due procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, including prior notice. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Licensed street vendors carrying on business as per licence granted by the authority can be evicted only by steps taken in accordance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If the authority wants to evict the petitioners, steps should be taken by giving due notice.

¶32

Key takeaways

Since the requisite due notice was not given in the present case, any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.ratio¶32
It remains open to the opposite parties to take necessary eviction 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
The Court noted that the State-opposite parties' contention that the petitioners' continuance by encroaching upon Government land causes difficulties to the local public has not yet been refuted, yet eviction must still follow the Section 18 procedure.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — W.P.(C) No. 34097 of 2021 — Sumanta Rout and others v. State of Odisha and others — Order dated 23.02.2024 (Dr. B.R. Sarangi and M.S. Sahoo, JJ.). Petitioners, claiming to be street vendors carrying on business under vending licences granted by the competent authority, sought a direction that their shops not be demolished and they not be evicted except in accordance with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The Court held that eviction of such licensed street vendors must be carried out strictly per Section 18 of the 2014 Act, by giving due notice; as no such notice had been given, any action taken by the authority could not 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. Although the State's contention that the vendors' encroachment on Government land obstructed the public stood unrefuted, the writ petition was disposed of on the footing that the statutory procedure governs eviction.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 34097 of 2021

¶3

Sumanta Rout and others

¶4

….. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. S. Satpathy, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

….. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA Mr. B. Dash, Advocate for O.P. Nos.3 and 4

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶12

MR. JUSTICE M. S. SAHOO

ORDER 23.02.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The petitioners, claiming to be street vendors have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties not to demolish their 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 them to continue their vending unit as Street Vendors.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are carrying on their small business as street vendors 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 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

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

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.

¶22

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 petitioners. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in taking steps for eviction of the petitioner.

¶23

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 street vendors having vending license granted by the competent authority. The contention of the State-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:-

¶24

“18. Payment of maintenance charges:

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.”

¶32

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.

¶33