Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 8304
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.I.ARUN
KARNATAKA PRADESH BEEDHI BADHI VYAPARIGALA OKKUTTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 12311/2025
The court reinforces the necessity to follow due process before evicting street vendors while balancing their livelihood rights against those of business owners.
Headnote:{'statute_analysis': 'The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 was enacted to protect the livelihoods of street vendors.', 'facts_of_the_case': 'The petitioners are street vendors facing evictions initiated by residents and shop owners with legitimate businesses, prompting this petition.', 'findings_of_court': 'The court acknowledges the need to balance the rights of street vendors against the rights of business owners and residents but emphasizes the importance of legal procedures.', 'issues': 'Whether the actions of the authorities infringe upon the rights of the street vendors?', 'ratio_decidendi': 'Court emphasizes that actions should be conducted in accordance with the law and that all affected parties must be heard before any decision is made.', 'result': 'The writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the submission made by the learned counsel for BBMP and the State.'}
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal balancing of rights of street vendors and formal businesses. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. guidance on legal processes for handling street vendor relocations. (Para 3) |
| 3. importance of considering affected parties in regulatory actions. (Para 4) |
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are street vendors operating in several areas in Bangalore. At the instance of residents and few shop owners who are legitimately operating businesses from pucca buildings, action is initiated by the respondent authorities to evict the street vendors. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
2. Admittedly, the street vendors do not have a right to infringe upon the rights of the business persons operating from pucca buildings after obtaining all the necessary permissions. They also do not have a right to cause nuisance to residents in front of whose house the street vendors tend to operate. However, taking into consideration the poor economic background of the street vendors, the State has enacted the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act , 2014.
3. The counsel appearing for Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the State together submittaking into consideration all the aforementioned factors, action would be initiated to evict the street vendors or rehabilitate them in the manner known to law. They further submit all the affected parties will be heard in accordance with law before taking appropriate action.
4. The writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the submission made by the learned counsel for BBMP and the State.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
