Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10832
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Nitin Jamdar, CJ, S.MANU, J
SARAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WA 735/2025
MANU RAMACHANDRAN, M.KIRANLAL, R.RAJESH (VARKALA), T.S.SARATH, SAMEER M NAIR, SAILAKSHMI MENON, AASHI K. SHAJAN, MINZA FATHIMA, SALIM M., BINITHA MARIA THOMAS, KEZIL THOTTUKADAVIL CHERIAN, SRI. S. SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM), SC, SRI. V. TEKCHAND, SR. GP
Street vendors are protected under the Street Vendors Act, and eviction must follow statutory procedures, as affirmed by judicial precedent.
Headnote:(A) Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 - The appeal concerns the eviction of a street vendor by the Municipal Corporation, which was challenged under the provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge denied interim relief, prioritizing public interest over statutory rights. (Paras 2, 3)
(B) Judicial Precedent - The Division Bench in Mahadevi v. Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam Collectorate, 2025 (2) KLT 90, affirmed that street vendors have statutory protection and eviction must comply with the Act and the Scheme of 2019. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant, a street vendor, was sought to be evicted by the Municipal Corporation, leading to the filing of W.P.
(C)No.12892 of 2025 for interim relief, which was denied by the learned Single Judge.
Findings of Court:
The Municipal Corporation must follow the statutory provisions for eviction as per the Act and the Scheme, ensuring the Appellant's interests are protected.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Municipal Corporation could evict the Appellant without adhering to the statutory protections provided under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that eviction actions must align with the statutory protections afforded to street vendors, as established in the precedent case.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
Heard Mr. Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel for the Appellant/Original Petitioner, Mr. S. Sreekumar (Kollam), learned Standing Counsel for the Kollam Municipal Corporation and Mr. V.
Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader.
2. The appeal is filed by the Original Petitioner who is a street vendor doing the street vending activity within the jurisdiction of the Respondent Municipal Corporation. The Appellant was sought to be evicted from her place of business as a street vendor and challenging this action of the Municipal Corporation, the Appellant filed W.P. (C)No.12892 of 2025 and prayed for an interim relief. The learned Single Judge rejected the interim relief holding that the public interest will overweigh any statutory right under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (Act 7 of 2014).
3. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that an identical fact situation was considered by the Division Bench in the case of Mahadevi v. Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam Collectorate , 2025 (2) KLT 90 and by judgment dated 11 February 2025, the Division Bench observed that the street vendors have a statutory protection and even for taking action under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 , case for summary eviction will have to be made out by the Municipal Corporation for such immediate threat, failing which the eviction will have to be as per the provisions of the Act 7 of 2014 and the Kerala Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood, Regulation of Street Vending and Licensing) Scheme, 2019 (Scheme of 2019). Even the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation agrees that the Municipal Corporation will have to proceed to take steps against the Appellant as per the provisions of the Act 7 of 2014 and the Scheme of 2019, as per the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mahadevi.
4. In light of this statement made by the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, which adequately protects the interests of the Appellant being in tune with the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mahadevi, no further orders are required to be passed in the appeal. It is accordingly disposed of.
