SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK 
K.R. MOHAPATRA, SAVITRI RATHO, JJ. 
Pradeep Mallick And Ors. - Appellant 
Versus
State of Odisha, Represented through its Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department And Ors.   – Respondent 
WP(C) No. 16220 of 2025  
Decided On : 24-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra, Adv.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattanaik, Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. Shashi Bhusan Jena, Advocate

Compliance with statutory notice requirements and proper issuance of street vending certificates were upheld, confirming lawful methodological procedures for vendor relocations under the Street Vending Act.

Headnote:(A) Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 - Section 3 and 4 - Petitioners sought protection from eviction as street vendors; argued for compliance with notice requirements before declaring a 'No Vending Zone' - Court found no infirmity in issued Street Vending Certificates and noted sufficient notice was provided before the classification. (Paras 2, 12, 14)

(B) Jurisdictional compliance - Municipal authority followed the required procedures under the Act and Scheme; no coercive action could precede proper issuance of Vending Certificates. (Paras 10, 15)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners faced eviction threats from the Konark NAC despite holding Street Vending Certificates since 2020; claimed no prior notice was given before declaring their business area a 'No Vending Zone.'

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the authority's actions based on existing law and noted compliance with the prior judgment's directives, establishing sufficient notice and proper procedures for relocation.

Issues: The Court addressed the adequacy of notice before declaring a no-vending zone and the legitimacy of the street vending certificates issued.

Ratio Decidendi: The legislation requires compliance with notified procedures for eviction, which were followed; no evidence suggested that vendors' businesses were unduly harmed by relocation.

Result: Writ petition dismissed, with interim orders vacated.

Table of Content
1. protection under street vending act (Para 1)
2. claims of petitioners against eviction (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's observations on compliance and relocation (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14)
4. legality of street vending certificates (Para 12 , 15)
5. dismissal of the writ petition (Para 16)

Judgment :

By the Bench

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.

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.27709 of 2022. The writ petition was disposed of on 20th October, 2022 with the following direction.

“xxx xxx xxx xxx

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.

xxx xxx xxx xxx”

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.27709 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.

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.

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,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top