The summary eviction of a vendor without due notice and based on discriminatory practices by the Municipality violated fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2023 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

A Local Self Government Institution and its Secretary have approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as, 'Human Rights Commission') directing payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the 3rd respondent, a street vendor for summarily evicting him and taking away the articles kept for sale.

2. The 3rd respondent, who claims to be a vendor of clothes and garments on the side of Modern Hotel, off the pavement at K.K. road, Kottayam since 08.07.1984, approached the Human Rights Commission by Ext. P4 complaint alleging that, on 14.05.2015, at around 12.15 P.M, a sanitation worker from the Municipality asked him to remove a waste kit placed near his vending place and when told that he has not kept the waste kit there, the worker abused him and later, when he left the vending place to buy medicine, about 15 employees of the Municipality came in a garbage collection vehicle and took away all the clothes kept by him for sale. He contended that his source of livelihood has been affected and he is not in a position to repay the loans and he sustained a loss of Rs.2,34,000/- and has to be compensated by the Municipality.

3. The Municipality filed a report before the Human Rights Commission stating that the 3rd respondent was summarily evicted pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 14.05.2015 and in exercise of powers under Section 367 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 since there were reports regarding obstruction to vehicular and pedestrian traffic in K.K road and M.L road due to street vending and the 3rd respondent was occupying ¾ portion of the pavement and was littering the area causing blockage of the drain.

4. The Human Rights Commission visited the premises of the Municipality and recorded that only one box and a few items could be seen and no details of the items seized were recorded in the mahazar.

5. In Ext.P7 order, the Human Rights Commission observed that though several persons were vending at the side of the road, only the 3rd respondent was evicted and it is evident that the 3rd respondent was evicted at the behest of the owner of the hotel near the place where the 3rd respondent is vending. The Commission found that the action of the Municipality in picking and choosing the 3rd respondent for the purpose of eviction is discriminatory. The Commission also found that the eviction of the 3rd respondent without notice from the place where he is doing business for a quarter century is inhumane and is in violation of natural justice, his human rights and right to life and the directions of the Honb'le Supreme Court and the Government Policies. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the loss of income, infringement of human rights and right to life and mental agony suffered by the 3rd respondent, the Human Rights Commission directed the Municipality to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to him and further directed to provide facility to him to re-allocate, once place is available.

6. Ext.P7 order is challenged by the petitioners contending that there is no violation of human rights and the 1st respondent lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the 3rd respondent. It is further contended that the Municipality can summarily evict the encroachers under Sections 367 (3) and 372 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the officers of the Municipality have performed the said duty in implementation of Ext.P1 order issued by the Secretary and execution of lawful orders cannot be treated as violation of any rights, less human rights. It is also contended that the Human Rights Commission cannot order payment of compensation and can make only recommendation to the Authority under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 . Accordingly, the petitioners pray for direction to quash Ext.P7 and to declare that the 1st respondent has no jurisdic