Bijay Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to restrain the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) and Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA)- Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 from evicting the Petitioner from the site, i.e., near Station Bazar, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar (for short, ‘the case land’), where he is running his tea stall and to direct Opposite parties to allow him to run his business for livelihood.

¶21

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was granted Certificate of Street

¶22

Page 1 of 5

¶23

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 24-Mar-2025 14:22:33

¶24

Vending (Annexure-1 series) as per Clause-7.1 of the Odisha Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2015 (for short, ‘the Scheme’) read with Section 3 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short, ‘the Act’). He was issued with the street vending certificate on 1^st August, 2020, which was valid till 1^st August, 2021. However, the Petitioner is running his business till date over the case land. He was also issued with street vending identity card and token No.410670 (Annexure-1 series) by the BMC. Very recently, the authorities of Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 made an attempt to evict the Petitioner without issuing any notice. Hence, apprehending eviction, this writ petition has been filed.

¶25

3.1 It is his submission that the Petitioner has filed an application for renewal of his certificate of street vending on 20^th March, 2024 (Annexure-2 series), but no action has yet been taken on the same. Hence, he prays for a direction to Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 to consider his application for renewal of certificate of streeting vending and to permit him to run his business at the same place.

¶26

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the BMC relying on the counter affidavit filed submits that no eviction drive has been undertaken by the BMC for eviction of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has unauthorizedly running his business on the case land which is of kissam ‘Nayanjori’ recorded in the name of GA Department, which coms under the development area of

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 24-Mar-2025 14:22:33

¶29

Bhubaneswar city. Due to his unauthorized occupation, vehicular movement is seriously affected and the same is causing serious traffic issues so also hindrances in sanitation. Further, by the illegal act of the Petitioner, other persons are encouraged to encroach upon the land nearby Bhubaneswar Railway Station. He further submits that no application has been filed by the Petitioner for relocation of his shop to any vending zone. If any such application is filed under the Act and Scheme in vogue, the same shall be considered by the Town Vending Committee-Opposite Party No.3.

¶30

Ms. Naidu, learned Counsel for BDA submits that she has no submission to make in the present case, as BDA has no role to play in the eviction drive or relocation of the Petitioner in any vending zone.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court finds that certificate of street vending was issued to the Petitioner on 1^st August, 2020 (Annexure-1 series). Thus, it cannot be denied that the Petitioner was a street vendor. However, the Petitioner has not made any application for renewal before expiry of the term of such certificate. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has submitted application under Annexure-2 series for renewal of such certificate.

¶32

Section 3(1) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 clearly stipulates that there shall be a survey of all existing

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 24-Mar-2025 14:22:33

¶35

street vendors, within the area under the jurisdiction of the local body and subsequent survey shall be carried out at least once in every five years. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for BMC does not have any definite instruction as to whether any such survey has been carried out or not. Sub-section (3) of Section-3 clearly stipulates that no street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under subsection (1) has been completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors.

¶36

Since the Certificate of Street Vending under Annexure-1 series has already been issued to the Petitioner; thus, in absence of any material to the contrary, it is presumed that survey of street vendors before issuance of such certificate/license by the Town Vending Committee has been made. However, the Petitioner has made application as per Clauses- 6(2), 7 (1) and 8(2) of the Scheme for renewal of his Certificate of Street Vending. Such an application is stated to be pending before the Town Vending Committee of the BMCOpposite Party No.3.

¶37

8.1 Thus, this Court feels that interest of justice will be best served if the Petitioner makes a fresh application to the Town Vending Committee-Opposite Party No.3 of BMC for renewal of his Certificate of Street Vending by 6^th March, 2025 in proper format along with relevant information and documents, the same shall be considered by the Town Vending Committee in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 24-Mar-2025 14:22:33

¶40

within a period of fifteen days there from and decision thereof shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith, which we direct. It is made clear that if the Town Vending Committee intends to relocate the Petitioner to any other vending zone, the same shall be done in accordance with the provision of Section 18 of the Act read with Clause-10 of the Scheme.

¶41

Till disposal of the application for renewal of the Certificate of Street Vending, if filed by the Petitioner within the time stipulated above, the Petitioner shall not be evicted from the place where he is running his business.

¶42

With the observation and direction, as aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶44

s.s.satapathy

¶45

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶46

Page 5 of 5

Bijay Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijay Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janaki Ballav Pattanaik Vs Chief General Manager, Msme, Bbsr.

Manorama Sanitary Vs Canara Bank, Arm Branch

Patitapaban Swain Vs State of Odisha

All Odisha Contractors Association, Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

M/S Gyan Kalp Charitable Trust, Bbsr Vs Chief Manager and Authorized Officer , Bank of Baroda, Bbsr

Giridhari Sahoo Vs State of Odisha