Basant Ku.Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Basant Ku.Sahoo 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 petitioners must be preceded by due notice and carried out in consonance with Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; liberty left to the opposite parties to proceed afresh in accordance with that provision and due procedure of law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties may demolish or close down the petitioners' street-vending shops without following the due procedure of law prescribed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. +1 more

Court's answer

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 and do the needful by following due procedure of law.

Ratio / Principle

This Court records that there is no dispute that the petitioners are carrying on business as street vendors having vending licenses granted by the competent authority.

Key takeaways

If the authority wants to evict the petitioners, steps must be taken by giving due notice in terms of Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.ratio¶31
Since such steps of due notice had not been taken in the present case, any action taken by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 — S. 18 — eviction/relocation of licensed street vendors — petitioners claiming to be street vendors holding vending licenses granted by the competent authority sought a direction restraining demolition of their shops without due procedure — Held: where vendors carry on business under licenses granted by the competent authority, the authority must take eviction steps in consonance with S. 18 of the Act, i.e., by giving due notice (S. 18(3)-(4) contemplate thirty days' notice and physical eviction only after failure to vacate); any action taken by the authority without such steps cannot be sustained in the eye of law — however, it is open to the opposite parties to take necessary steps afresh in consonance with S. 18 and do the needful by following due procedure of law — writ petition disposed of. (Division Bench: Dr. B.R. Sarangi and M.S. Sahoo, JJ.; order dated 13.02.2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 3927 of 2017

Basant Ku. Sahoo & others

Petitioners

Mr. P.P. Behera, Advocate

Vs.

State of Odisha and others

….. Opposite Parties

Mr. A. K. Nanda, AGA for Opp. Parties 1,4,5 & 6 Mr. S.K. Nayak-1, Advocate for O.P.2

CORAM:

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

ORDER

13.02.2024

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners, claiming to be a 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.

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

Page 1 of 3

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.

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.

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:-

“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 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.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

RJ/Alok

(M.S. SAHOO) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 16-Feb-2024 10:51:54

Page 3 of 3