HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
CHELLADURAI – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY- PALLIVASAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C)/36006/2022
Vendor - Street Vending - Street Vendors Act, 2014; Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 - The court interpreted provisions of the Street Vendors Act and the 2002 Act regarding unauthorised occupations and jurisdiction of local authorities over street vending, leading to the dismissal of the petitioners' claims.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, street vendors dependent on income from selling snacks near a National Highway, faced eviction threats. They claimed protections under the Street Vendors Act, seeking adjudication on their representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no jurisdiction for the Panchayat to address vending concerns near the National Highway and highlighted that the National Highway Authority had the sole authority to remove unauthorised vendors.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could seek protection under the Street Vendors Act, given their proximity to a National Highway and lack of municipal jurisdiction over the area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Street Vendors Act did not apply as the vending location fell outside municipal limits and the National Highway Authority held sole authority over land control.
Final Decision: Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners, seven in numbers, are claiming to the street vendors engaged in the avocation of selling snacks, tender coconut and street foods to tourists at Pallivasal, ‘2nd Mile View Point’ and ‘S Turn Point’, the place of attraction for tourists, over a period of five years. The road in front of the petitioners shed is 12 feet wide and located more than five meters away from the National Highway, as such there is no hindrance caused to the vehicles plying on the road. Petitioners are totally dependant on the income derived from the trade. On 29.10.2022, made a representation to the local Panchayat after having been faced with the threat of of forcible eviction from the local authorities.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are covered under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulations of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Street Vendors Act’, for short) and in view of the provisions of the aforementioned Act, local authorities are enjoined upon an obligation to form a committee for dedicating a vending zone for such street vendors or what is sought is adjudication of the representation Ext.P2 and till such time, the forcible eviction may be ordered to be kept in abeyance.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 National Highway submitted that petitioners do not fall within the definition of 2(l) of the Street Vendors Act. It is a land of National Highway, not falling within zone of Municipal limit. Any Panchayat situated near the National Highway would not be having any ownership of the land much less the petition is bereft of any cause of action for the reason no written notice by any authority much less by the national authority so far has been issued. Provisions of Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2002 Act’, for short) enacted by the Parliament for providing control of the land within the National Highway and movement of the traffic, the power for removal unauthorised evacuation vests with the national Highway. In support of the aforementioned contention, relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.08.2015 in W.A.No.1665 of
2015 in W.P.(C) No.16455 of 2015.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
5. Section 2 (l) of the 2002 Act which reads as under:
“street vendor means a person engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares, food items or
place to place and includes hawker, peddler, squatter and all other synonymous terms which may be local or region specific and the words “street vending” with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly. ”
6. Concededly, as per the averments in the writ petition the alleged vending is adjacent to the National Highway and there is no pleading to the effect that whether the alleged area of vending falls within the Municipal limit. It cannot be presumed that the Municipality would have the jurisdiction to entertain and consider the request of the petitioners for constitution of town vending committee or zone.
7. Section 26 of 2002 Act reads thus:
“26.Removal of unauthorised occupation-- (1)Where the Highway Administration or the officer authorised by such administration in this behalf is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of traffic safety or convenience to cancel any permit issued under sub-section (2) of section 24, it may, after recording the reasons in writing for doing so, cancel such permit and, thereupon, the person to whom the permission was granted shall, within the period specified by an order made by the Highway administration or such officer resto
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.