Emergency Situation May Arise For Removal Of Street Vendors, But It Cannot Be Used As Grounds To Bypass Their Statutory Rights: Kerala HC

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed that the 2014 Act was enacted by the Parliament to create a harassment free environment for street vendors, to safeguard their rights and livelihood. The Court further stated that 2014 Act requires constitution of a Town Vending Committee, creation of a street vending plan every five years, formulation of a regulatory scheme and also provides a procedure for relocation of licensed street vendors to another suitable site.

Court stated “Undoubtedly, there may be cases where there is a need for immediate action for the purpose of disaster management. It could be argued that, in certain grave and emergent situations, it may be necessary to remove street vendors. But it cannot be used as a ruse to bypass the statutory rights under the Act of 2014 and the Scheme. Such action will have to be reconciled with the provisions of the Act of 2014 and the Scheme which contemplates relocation. If the Appellants had to be relocated on an urgent basis, the relocation had to be in another vending zone. This could not have been done due to the failure of the Respondent – Corporation to finalise the vending zones.”

The appellants here are street vendors having small street vending business on four-wheeler carts near district hospital in Kollam district. Notice of evictions were given on August 13, 2024 based on the report of the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA). The appellants were being evicted based on an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate for using LPG gas cylinders for cooking near the hospital which has an oxygen plant and that eviction was carried based on safety protocols of KSDMA.

The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the order of eviction. They also sought a direction to the Corporation to restrain from evicting them unless absolutely necessary, as well as to give them alternative suitable site for carrying business.

The writ petition was dismissed, aggrieved by which the appeal is filed.

The appellants submitted that they cannot be treated as trespassers and possess statutory rights. It was submitted that the Corporation has not constituted a Town Vending Committee and has not determined vending zones. It was also stated that no final list of approved vendors were made and that no licenses have been issued to street vendors. It was also stated that they were being singled out for eviction raising safety concerns when other street vendors were also operating near the hospital.

The Court further stated that appellants were being evicted without referring to their rights under the 2014 Act and Kerala Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood, Regulation of Street Vending and Licensing) Scheme of 2019.

Court further stated, “The Act of 2014, as its Statement of Objects would show, recognises street vendors as a crucial part of the urban economy, providing self-employment and aiding poverty alleviation. Street vendors are those who are unable to get regular employment in the formal sector on account of their low level of education and skills. For them, street vending provides a source of self-employment and thus acts as a measure of urban poverty alleviation without major Government intervention. Street vending also has a prominent place in the urban supply chain and is an integral part of the economic growth process within urban areas. The Act of 2014 aims to ensure a harassment-free environment for the street vendors, and regulate street vending.”

Relying upon the provisions of the 2014 Act and the Scheme of 2019, the Court noted that the Town Vending Committee has to survey all existing street vendors and must carry subsequent surveys at least once in every five years. It further stated that the Town Vending Committee must identity existing street vendors in their vending zones and they shall not be relocated without the survey. The Court stated it was mandatory for the Town Vending Committee to issue certificate of vending and if they have to be relocated, then they must be provided with a new site or area. The Court observed that Section 27 of the Act states that street vendors who carry street vending based on certificate issued by the Town Vending Committee cannot be harassed by police authorities.

Court added, “The above-mentioned statutory provisions show that the Legislature, recognizing the vulnerable position of street vendors, has conferred certain rights while regulating their activities, including prescribing the manner of their relocation. The Act of 2014 mandates forming a Town Vending Committee, a street vending plan every five years, and framing of a regulatory scheme.”

The Court further noted that as per the 2019 scheme relocation can only take place in exceptional circumstances, such as when public purposes warrant the use of a specific location or for projects of public purposes.

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that it was unclear whether any survey was conducted by the Town Vending Committee. It also stated that it was not clear if the Corporation has finalised vending zones and if the appellants would be relocated to a suitable vending zone.

Court noted that the appellants could not be relocated earlier since the vending zones were not finalised by the Corporation and that the survey was also incomplete. It stated that vendors cannot be relocated without finalising the vending zones.

The Court thus concluded that the appellants who were in list approved by the Corporation Council, Town Vending Committee cannot be relocated for implementation of KSDMA safety protocols, in violation to the 2014 Act and the Scheme of 2019.

The Court stated that the Corporation was evicting the appellants without even finalizing the vending zones and without relocating them.

As such, the Court set aside the notice of eviction and stated that the Corporation can proceed against the appellants as per law in accordance to the 2014 Act and the scheme of 2019.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates P Sivaraj, Megha MS

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate S Sreekumar (Kollam), Senior Government Pleader V Tekchand

Case Title: Mahadevi v Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case No: WA NO. 1995 OF 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 99