2026 Supreme(Mad) 1060

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.Velmurugan, B.Pugalendhi, JJ.
S.Sidtharthan - Petitioner
Versus
Ayubkhan, The Commissioner, Kadayanallur Municipality – Respondent
Cont.P(MD)No.1851 of 2019 & WP(MD)Nos.16320 of 2019; 2347 of 2020 and WMP(MD)Nos.12976 of 2019; 1996 of 2020; 22223, 22256 of 2025
Decided On : 05-06-2026

The right to trade is balanced by reasonable restrictions ensuring free public passage. Local authorities must strictly adhere to statutory mandates for survey, regulation, and zoning. Systemic failure to execute these duties constitutes a breach of the rule of law and official misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(g) - Right to carry on trade - Article 19(1)(d) - Right to free movement - Statutory provisions for protection of livelihood and regulation of street vending - Principles governing conduct and devotion to duty of government servants.

(B) The right to carry on trade is not absolute and must be harmonized with the fundamental right of citizens to move freely and use public roads without impediment. A balance must be struck by state authorities through formal regulation rather than arbitrary actions. The failure of executive officers to implement mandated statutory processes, such as conducting surveys, constituting regulatory committees, and demarcating vending zones within prescribed timelines, constitutes a breach of the rule of law and a failure in the discharge of statutory duties. Habitual default in performing assigned responsibilities in accordance with the law warrants disciplinary inquiry under relevant conduct rules. The delegation of fee collection for the occupation of public spaces to private contractors is legally untenable and exploitative.

Facts of the case:
A resident filed multiple proceedings against the encroachment of street vendors, citing total obstruction of access to their residence on public pathways. Concurrently, street vendor associations sought protection from displacement, alleging harassment and the unlawful collection of daily fees by private contractors appointed by the municipal authority. The local authorities had consistently failed to comply with prior judicial directives to regulate these activities, causing persistent public nuisance.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that while vending is a recognized profession, the unregulated occupation of public pathways violates the rights of the general public. Local bodies demonstrated systemic disregard for their statutory obligations, failing to identify vending zones or issue proper licenses. The practice of appointing third-party contractors for fee collection was found to be unauthorized and contributed to the exploitation of the vending community.

Issues: The court addressed the balancing of the fundamental right to trade versus the public right to safe passage, the accountability of local administrative authorities regarding the failure to implement mandatory regulatory schemes, and the legality of outsourcing municipal fee collection to private agents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory authorities are bound by the rule of law to implement legislative mandates. Failure to operationalize designated committees and demarcate usage zones within clear timelines constitutes official negligence. Disciplinary action is required against officers who consistently abandon their duty, and public authorities must move away from the exploitation of vulnerable groups through private contractors, ensuring that all vending activities occur specifically within legally sanctioned zones.

Result: Petitions disposed with directions for the immediate identification of vending zones, issuance of certificates, banning of private collection practices, and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against defaulting officers for failure to perform statutory duties.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and consolidation of contempt and writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. conflicting claims of residents, street vendors, and municipal authorities regarding vending zones. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. legal framework for street vending and the necessity of balancing rights of vendors and public. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. critique of illegal fee collection and exploitation by local municipal bodies. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. failure of municipal bodies to implement statutory mandates and court orders. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. rule of law and accountability of public servants for duty failure. (Para 29 , 30)
7. judicial directions for disciplinary action and enforcement of street vendors act. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

ORDER :

1.The contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)No.1851 of 2019 has been filed by one Sidtharthan, a resident of Dr.Ambedkar Street, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli, that he is not able to access his house, due to the encroachment of street vendors and hawkers on the streets and public pathways in and around Muppudathi Amman Temple Street, in Ward No.17 & 18. According to him, it is not his grievance alone. More than 100 families residing in and around Muppudathi Amman Temple Street, Kadayanallur Town, Tirunelveli District, were denied ingress and egress through the streets in the morning hours from 07.00 am to 11.00 am and in the evening hours from 05.00 pm to 07.00 pm. With this averment, this petitioner has approached this Court by filing multiple writ petitions from the year 2017.

2.In his first writ petition in WP(MD)No.1981 of 2017, this Court, by its order dated 06.02.2017, directed the Commissioner, Kadayanallur Municipality, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.10.2015 and to remove the encroachments, if any, in Ward Nos.17 & 18, by following due process of law and also within a stipulated time. However, the petitioner, with the same grievance that the encroachments are continuing in Ward Nos.17 & 18 of Muppudathi Amman Temple Street, has once again filed another writ petition before this Court in WP(MD)No. 10651 of 2017. The said writ petition was taken up along with five other writ petitions in WP(MD)Nos.3294, 4851, 4852, 10761 of 2015 & 3699 of 2017 which were filed by the street vendors to forbear the Commissioner, Kadayanallur Municipality and the Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur, from removing their shops from Sannathi Street, Kadayanallur, without providing alternative place for carrying out vending. During the hearing of those writ petitions, counter affidavit was filed by the Kadayanallur Municipality that they have already identified the street vendors and they would be issued with a bio-metric card and thereafter, necessary arrangements would be made to identify the vending and non-vending zones. Recording this submission made by the Kadayanallur Municipality, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 21.08.2017, disposed all the writ petitions, with a direction to the Commissioner, Kadayanallur Municipality, to complete the process within a stipulated time of four months. The Division Bench, while disposing the writ petitions, had also directed the Municipality authorities to ensure that there shall not be any further encroachments, once the vending zones are properly identified, earmarked and that it should be maintained properly.

3.This contempt petitioner, Sidtharthan, who was a party to the above common order passed by the Division Bench, has filed a contempt application in Cont.P(MD)No.755 of 2018 that the common order of the Division Bench dated 21.08.2017 has not been complied with and there was a willful disobedience by the Municipality. However, the said contempt petition was closed by this Court on 05.03.2019, recording that the order of this Court has been complied with.

4.While such being the position, the contempt petitioner has filed another writ petition before this Court in WP(MD)No.10063 of 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document