Ajtt Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

12. Chhabindra Das 13. Pradipta Kishor Biswal 14. Rabindra Kandi 15. Lingaraj Rout 16. Sankar Das 17. Sandip Mallick 18. Chhabila Kandi 19. Bidyadhar Mallick 20. Sarata Kumar Nayak 21. Kusa Kandi 22. Budhanath Kandi 23. Chandan Prasad Parida

¶14

24. Babaji Charan Sahoo 25. Bishnu Chandra Mallik …. Petitioners

¶15

-Versus-

¶16

1. State of Odisha, represented through its Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Bhubaneswar

¶17

2. Collector, Puri

¶18

Page 1 of 11

¶19

WP(C) No. 20065 of 2025

¶20

3. Executive Officer, Notified Area Council, Konark

¶21

4. Tahasildar, Gop, Dist. Puri

¶22

…. Opposite Parties

¶23

Advocates appeared:

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattanaik, Additional Government Advocate Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (Both for Opposite Party Nos.1, 2 and 4) Mr. Shashi Bhusan Jena, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.3)

¶25

CORAM:

¶26

MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶27

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Heard and disposed of on 24.09.2025

¶28

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T

¶29

By the Bench:

¶30

1. Petitioners in this writ petition pray for a direction to give them protection under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for brevity, ‘the Street Vending Act’) and not to evict from Chandrabhaga Road side till they are rehabilitated in a suitable vending zone as per the law considering the facts and circumstances mentioned in the writ petition.

¶31

Page 2 of 11

¶32

WP(C) No.16221 of 2025

¶33

2. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel submits that the Petitioners are carrying on their business and earning livelihood as Street Vendors at Chandrabhaga Road side since long. They were also issued Street Vending Identity Cards in the year 2020 identifying them as the Street Vendors. When they were carrying on their business smoothly, the Notified Area Counsel, Konark (for brevity, ‘NAC Konark’) threatened their eviction from the place where they are running their business. Hence, finding no other alternative, they approached this Court in WP(C) No.27711 of 2022. The writ petition was disposed of on 20^th October, 2022 with the following direction.

¶34

6. Since Mr. Mohapatra submits that the petitioners are carrying on business of street vending at Chandrabhaga area for a long period and since their families are dependent upon the income derived from street vending business, we permit the petitioners to file individual applications in proper forms for grant of Certificates of Vending as envisaged in the above noted Scheme of 2015, promulgated under section 38 of the Street Venders (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 before the appropriate authority within two weeks and in the event such applications are filed before the Executive Officer, Notified Area Council (opposite party no.3), the opposite party no.3 is directed to take action on the same in tune with the provisions of the above noted Act and the scheme and complete the entire exercise in accordance with law within a period of three months and communicate the result of such exercise to the petitioners. Till decision is taken on such representations, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners, provided they file the applications within the time as permitted by this Court.

¶35

xxx xxx xxx xxx”

¶36

Page 3 of 11

¶37

WP(C) No.16221 of 2025

¶38

3. Pursuant to the said direction, the Petitioners applied for issuance of Street Vending Certificate in their favour by submitting individual applications in proper format, but without complying with the direction of this Court in WP(C) No.27711 of 2022 (Annexure-4), the Petitioners were again threatened to be evicted from the place, where they are carrying on their business. Hence, they were constrained to file the present writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.

¶39

4. It is submitted that in the guise of tourism development, the Petitioners are deprived of their livelihood and are being thrown out to a place where they will lose both their business and livelihood. In the meantime, though the Chandrabhaga Road side has been declared as ‘No Vending Zone’ and the Petitioners were issued with Street Vending Certificates, but the same are not in consonance with the provisions of the Street Vending Act and Scheme framed thereunder.

¶40

5. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that before declaring a place as ‘No Vending Zone’, seven days prior notice should have been given to the Petitioners in terms of Clause-10 of the Odisha Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2015 (for brevity, ‘the Scheme’) prepared in exercise of power under Section 38 of the Street Vending Act. He referred to Clause-10 of the Scheme, which reads as under.

¶41

“ 10. Relocation and Eviction of Street Vendor .- (1) Where the Town Vending Committee recommend to declare a Vending Zone or part of it to be a no vending zone under

¶42

Page 4 of 11

¶43

WP(C) No.16221 of 2025

¶44

section 18 and for relocation of Street Vendors vending in that vending zone, the Municipality shall, intimate the Street Vendor of that zone seven days prior to date of declaration and as far as practicable rehabilitate the Street Vendor with the same area or relocate in or nearby vending zone or otherwise liable to be evicted by the Municipality.

¶45

(2) If the Street Vendor fails to vacate the place on or shift to relocated place before the period of thirty days, from the date of receipt of notice delivered by hand or by registered post, the Municipality may cause the physical removal, if necessary with assistance of the Police, of the Street Vendor and seize the goods of such Street Vendor by an officer authorized by the Municipality in this behalf and the authorized officer shall make a list of goods so seized in Form-V and obtain signature of the Street Vendor thereon and a copy thereof shall be handed over to such Street Vendor:

¶46

Provided that the authorized officer may release the goods if such vendor makes a claim within two working days and pay a fee of two hundred fifty rupees or an amount not exceeding the value of goods so seized whichever is less:

¶47

Provided further that in case of perishable goods the authorized officer shall release the goods on the same day on payment of fee which may extend to two hundred fifty rupees but shall not be more than the value of goods so seized.

¶48

(3) Any Street Vendor who carry on business of vending activities without having a certificate of Vending or whose certificate of vending has been cancelled under section 10, shall be evicted by giving twenty-four hours notice in writing delivered in hand and if such Street Vendor does not vacate the place within the said period of twenty-four hour, the Municipality, shall use physical force for such eviction and seize the goods and impose penalty as provided in sub-para(2).”

¶49

5.1 It is his submission that no such notice was issued before declaring the Chandrabhaga sea side as ‘No Vending Zone’ by the NAC, Konark. It is further submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel that the Street Vending Certificates have been issued without indicating the name of the

¶50

Page 5 of 11

¶51

WP(C) No.16221 of 2025

¶52

vending zone. Thus, the same is not in consonance with the provisions of the Street Vending Act. He also refers to Sections 3 and 4 of the Street Vending Act and submits that the Street Vending Certificate should have been issued in favour of the Petitioners in respect of the place where they are running their business and thereafter steps should have been taken to shift them to the vending zone, if any. He, therefore, submits that the entire action of the Konark NAC is only designed to evict the Petitioners from the Chandrabhaga Road side where they are running their business forcibly and to place them at a site where they will lose both business and livelihood without following due procedure of law. Hence, he prays for a direction to the Konark NAC to issue Street Vending Certificates in accordance with law complying with the provisions under Clause-10 of the Scheme. It is further submitted that the area to which the Petitioners are intended to be relocated, is also not a permanent vending zone. It is only a make shift arrangement intended to evict the Petitioners.

¶53

6. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Konark NAC vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that some of the Petitioners were issued with Street Vending Identity Cards in the year 2020. At present, for improvement of the area where the Petitioners were carrying on their business, for tourism development and to ease the traffic congestion, the Petitioners are shifted to a properly organized vending zone adjacent to the place where they are running their business. The area in which the Petitioners are running their business have

¶54

Page 6 of 11

¶55

WP(C) No.16221 of 2025

¶56

been declared ‘No Vending Zone’ vide order No.2060 dated 18^th September, 2025 issued by the Executive Officer, Konark NAC. Thus, the Petitioners cannot run their business at the place which has already been declared ‘No Vending Zone’. Further, complying with the provisions of Section 3 of the Street Vending Act, survey has been made and Street Vending Certificates have been issued to the eligible persons to be accommodated in the new vending zone. Although it is stated in the counter affidavit that they are being shifted to 150 meters away, but they are being shifted to a place adjacent to the area in which they are running their business. He, therefore, submits that order passed in WP(C) No.27711 of 2022 has already been complied with. Thus, there is no impediment to settle the Street Vendors in the new vending zone. Due to operation of the interim order, development work has been stalled. Thus, the Petitioners should cooperate with the Konark NAC to proceed with the development work and as the street vendors have already been identified, they should shift to the vending zone without creating any hindrance. Since the grievance of the Petitioners has already been redressed, Konark NAC should be permitted to take steps to settle the street vendors in the new vending zone.

¶57

7. Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that due to continuance of the interim order, the development project is stalled and huge amount of money sanctioned for the same is being wasted.

¶58

Page 7 of 11

¶59

WP(C) No.16221 of 2025

¶60

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶61

9. Perused the case record as well as the materials placed before us. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are running their business on Chandrabhaga Road side. They were issued with Street Vending Identity Cards in the year 2020. They had also approached this Court in WP(C) No.27711 of 2022 apprehending their eviction and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 20^th October, 2022 with the direction as quoted above. The argument advanced by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners is that without complying with the direction in WP(C) No.27711 of 2022, they are being threatened to be evicted.

¶62

10. This Court disposed of WP(C) No.27711 of 2022, permitting the Petitioners to file individual applications in proper format for grant of Certificate of Vending as per the Scheme, 2015. Pursuant to the same, the Petitioners stated to have made applications in proper format. It was directed therein that on receipt of such applications, the Executive Officer, Konark NAC should take action as per the Street Vending Act and Scheme, 2015 and take a decision on the same. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of three months and to communicate the result thereof to the Petitioners. It was further directed therein that till a decision is taken on such applications, no coercive action should be taken against the Petitioners provided they file the applications within the time as permitted by this Court.

¶63

Page 8 of 11

¶64

WP(C) No.16221 of 2025

¶65

11. It is alleged in this writ petition that without issuing Street Vending Certificates, the Petitioners are threatened to be evicted from the place where they are running their business. In course of hearing, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Street Vending Certificates have been issued to some of the Petitioners but the same is not in accordance with law as Place of vending has not been stated in the Street Vending Certificate.

¶66

12. Additional affidavit filed by the Executive Officer, Konark NAC also discloses that Street Vending certificates have been issued. A model copy of such Street Vending Certificate is annexed as Annexure-B/1 to such additional affidavit. Street Vending Certificate is issued in Form No III as per Clause-7(1) of the Scheme. There is no column in the Street Vending Certificate to mention the name/area of the vending zone. The name/area of the vending zone may be required to be mentioned in the identity cards to be issued to the street vendors in Form No. IV. The Street Vending Certificates issued in the instant case are valid till 15^th September, 2030. Sections 3 and 4 of the Street Vending Act do not contemplate that the Street Vending Certificates shall be issued in respect of a particular place. Thus, we find no infirmity in the Street Vending Certificates. The argument advanced by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners to that extent is thus not acceptable.

¶67

13. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners has taken exception for issuance of order declaring the area where

¶68

Page 9 of 11

¶69

WP(C) No.16221 of 2025

¶70

the Petitioners are running their business to be ‘No Vending Zone’. It is his submission that seven days prior notice should have been given to the Petitioners before declaring the area to be ‘No Vending Zone’.

¶71

14. The writ petition is pending before this Court since 9^th June, 2025 and the counter affidavit has been filed since 11^th August, 2025 serving copy thereof on learned counsel for the Petitioners. Thus, the Petitioners have sufficient notice of the fact that area in which they are running their business is going to be a ‘No vending Zone’. They have also been provided with stalls at vending zone adjacent to the area where they are running their business. Further, the veracity of the Street Vending Certificate and order of the Executive Officer declaring the area to be ‘No Vending Zone’ are not under challenge in this writ petition. Since the identified street Venders have already been issued with the Street Vending Certificates by considering their applications, we find sufficient compliance of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.27711 of 2022, disposed of on 20^th August, 2022 (Annexure-4).

¶72

15. Further, the Petitioners are running their business on the road side, which is not in organized manner. The same is also creating traffic congestions and sanitation problem. The Konark NAC is shifting them to a place where stalls have been made to accommodate the street vendors. As submitted by Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Konark NAC, the vending zone to which the street vendors will be shifted is adjacent to the place

¶73

Page 10 of 11

¶74

WP(C) No.16221 of 2025

¶75

where the Petitioners are running their business. There is no material available on record to suggest that the business prospect of the street vendors will be adversely affected if they are shifted to the newly created vending zone. Since a vending zone has been identified and the identified street vendors are going to be accommodated there, we find no merit in the writ petition.

¶76

16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order dated 13^th June, 2025 passed in IA No. 9751 of 2025 stands vacated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶77

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶78

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶79

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated, the 24^th September, 2025/RKS

¶80

Signature Not Verified

¶81

Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 02-Oct-2025 08:38:00

¶82

Page 11 of 11