Kerala High Court Directs Payyanur Muncipality To Demarcate Space For Street Vendors To Avoid Footpath Encroachment

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan remarked:

“Payyanur town needs a practical and humane response to footpath encroachment. It is true that the economic vulnerability of poor street vendors should be recognised; at the same time, we cannot overlook that pedestrians are forced onto the busy road because the pavement has been occupied. If anyone obstructs the public's free movement on the pathway, the Municipality and the police should address it. Street vendors can do business without encroaching on the pathway in a place earmarked for them. The Municipality should make necessary arrangements to ensure that their livelihood is not denied.”

The Court gave the direction in a plea preferred by a commercial building owner in Payyanur town alleging that her verandah abutting the public footpath was being illegally obstructed by the party respondent, who is a street vendor.

The petitioner contended that the respondent was using her verandah and adjourning space on the footpath for business activities and for storing materials. She added that it was obstructing the ingress and egress to her shops. She added that it was affecting her property rights, damaging her reputation as a shop owner and causing her loss of income.

Though she had approached the SHO of Payyanur police station to remove the encroachment, she was rendered any assistance. Further, the party respondent has also threatened her with danger to life and property, the petitioner submitted. She contended that the SHO and the Municipality chairperson have statutory duty to ensure that there is no obstruction to the public's free movement on footpaths.

After hearing the parties, the Court referred to Apex Court's judgment in Maniyar Ilayaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, which declared unobstructed footpath as a fundamental right to pedestrians.

While agreeing that footpaths are meant for pedestrians, the Court took a view that street vendors should also not be left high and dry:

“Footpaths are for pedestrians, not for street vendors. But I cannot turn a blind eye to poor street vendors whose livelihood depends on the daily income they earn in the evening, after working in the streets under the hot sun and during the rainy season. The livelihood of a street vendor is ordinarily a livelihood of necessity; a modest but honest endeavour to secure daily sustenance, put food on the table, and support the vendor's family with dignity.”

The Court directed the Chairperson to convene a meeting with the District Police Chief, Deputy Superintendent of Police as well as the SHO of Payyanur (respondents 1 to 3) to ensure that there is no street vending in Payyanur town area encroaching on footpath. It added that the meeting should earmark a place for existing street vendors to do their business in the town. It was made clear that this should be completed within 1 month.

Granting remedy to the petitioner, the Court directed the police officials and the Municipality to ensure that there are no further obstructions by street vendors preventing ingress and egress to her property.

“If anybody encroaches on the footpath, Payyanurites can also bring it to the notice…and if any such complaint is received, the police and Municipality authorities should act forthwith to remove the encroachment on the footpath,” the Court further added.

Directing the Registry to forward the judgment to the official respondents for compliance, the Court disposed of the plea.

Counsel for the petitioner: T.K. Vipindas, Varun S.

Counsel for the respondents: M. Sasindran, P. Abdul Nishad – Government Pleader