SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
P.BALAKRISHNAN, NOUFAL V, P.V.HARIDASAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1973 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI, SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON, SMT.VRINDA T.S., SMT.AISWARYA JAYAPAL
For the Respondents: SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN, SRI.T.M.KHALID, SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA, SRI. SREEJITH V..S, SR. GP.

Petitioners cannot claim benefits under the Street Vendors Act, 2014 as the Grama Panchayat is not categorized as a municipal body.

Headnote:The petition prays to quash notices of the Grama Panchayat concerning unauthorized construction alleging legal violation under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The court asserts that Grama Panchayat responsibilities do not invoke the Act's benefits, citing precedent case Musthaffa v. State of Kerala. With additional evidence on prohibited sales, the relief sought is denied, concluding the writ petition with dismissal.

Table of Content
1. writ petition seeks to quash notices for unauthorized construction. (Para 1)
2. court clarifies grama panchayat's non-qualification under street vendors act. (Para 2)
3. writ petition is dismissed based on public complaints and prohibited trading. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P1 to P3 notices issued by the Panchayat alleging unauthorised construction and illegal conduct of business. The petitioner claimed the benefit of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending)

Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. It is not disputed that the 3rd respondent is a Grama Panchayat and not a Municipal or Urban local body. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the Act, as held by this Court in its judgment reported in2025 KLT Online 3425 [ Musthaffa v. State of Kerala ].

3. It is also stated that the petitioners were selling prohibited items like pan parag, etc., and there had been several complaints from the public regarding the illegal trading of prohibited items to school and college students.

In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, and the writ petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top