The eviction of street vendors is unlawful without compliance with statutory provisions of the Street Vendors Act and the corresponding Scheme, which mandate the establishment of vending zones and proper procedures for relocation.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

The Appellants are street vendors operating a small street vending business on four-wheeler carts near the District Hospital on the Kollam Victoria – District Hospital Road. Street vending in the State of Kerala is regulated by the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 ("the Act of 2014") and the Kerala Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood, Regulation of Street Vending and Licensing) Scheme, 2019 ("the Scheme").

2. In 2016, when Appellant No. 1 faced eviction from her place of business, she filed W.P.(C) No. 38273 of 2016 before this Court, seeking a direction to restrain the Respondent – Corporation from evicting her. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 13 December 2016 with a direction to the Respondent – Corporation to finalise the list of vendors prepared by it. In 2020, Appellant No. 2 also faced eviction, and filed W.P.(C) No. 29194 of 2020, in which an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 29 December 2020 directing the Respondents therein not to forcibly evict him.

3. Notice of eviction (Exhibit-P6) was issued to the Appellants on 13 August 2024 citing the report of the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA). The Appellants filed W.P.(C) No. 29961 of 2024 before the learned Single Judge challenging the said notice and seeking a direction restraining the Respondents from evicting them unless warranted by circumstances, and after providing a suitable alternative site. Before the learned Single Judge, the State submitted that the Appellants are trespassers and are using LPG gas cylinders for cooking near a hospital housing an oxygen plant, which poses a safety risk and causes inconvenience. Considering the submissions of the Respondents, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 29 November 2024. The Appellants have now filed this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 29961 of 2024, dated 29 November 2024.

4. Heard Mr. P. Sivaraj, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mr. S. Sreekumar (Kollam), learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. The Appellants contend that they cannot be treated as trespassers and they possess rights under the law. They contend that, as per the provisions of the Act of 2014, a Town Vending Committee has to be constituted to determine vending zones, however, the Respondent – Corporation has neither constituted such a committee nor designated any vending zones. Although a survey was conducted, no final list of vendors has been prepared, and no licenses have been issued to street vendors to date. The Appellants rely on the order dated 13 December 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 38273 of 2016 , filed by Appellant No. 1. In that case, the statement of the learned counsel for the Kollam Corporation that Appellant No. 1 was included in the list prepared by the Town Vending Committee was recorded. It is contended that though the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition in December 2016 with a direction to finalise the list, despite the passage of time, no such list has been finalised. The Appellants submit that without complying with this direction, the Respondents seek to remove the Appellants based on the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 13 August 2024. The Appellants contend that even on safety grounds, they have been singled out for eviction. They contend that the claim regarding their proximity to an oxygen plant is factually incorrect. They rely on a Fire and Safety Report, and contended that two other shops, which do not belong to the Appellants, are within six metres of the plant, whereas the business of the Appellants is situated 30 metres away. In essence, the Appellants submit that their eviction viol