Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
Baby B – Appellant
Versus
Sri.Anilkumar S – Respondent
RP NO. 1700 OF 2025 | DBP NO.49 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Mohan Lal, P.S. Preetha, Motty Jiby Vasudevan, Abijith M, Avani Nair, Jayaprabha Arjun, Praveena T
For the Respondents: G. Biju, M.K. Chandramohan Das, A.R. Dileep
Rights of street vendors under the Street Vendors Act and relation to pending judicial proceedings.
Headnote:This review petition concerns the violation of rights of street vendors under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The court clarified previously made orders regarding unlawful vending and upheld the ongoing proceedings in a related writ petition. The court ruled that further merits of the vendors' rights were not evaluated in this review. The Review Petition is accordingly disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition by street vendors regarding their rights. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by counsel for involved parties. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on previous orders. (Para 5) |
| 4. clarification on ongoing related legal issues. (Para 6) |
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
This Review Petition has been filed by persons who were not p arties to Devaswom Board Petition No. 49 of 2025.
2. The application for leave filed as I.A.No.1 of 2025 was heard and allowed.
3. The review petitioners state that they are street vendors and that their rights to vend, as protected under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act , 2014, have been violated. They contend that they have already applied for a street-vending licence in terms of the 2014 Act and the Kerala Street V endors Scheme, 2019, and have instituted W.P.(C) No. 43641 of 2025 before this Court. It is submitted that in the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge has granted a n order of status quo, and that the Writ Petition is still pending consideration. However, according to them, misinterpreting certain observations made by this Court in DBP No. 49 of 2025, t he review petitioners, who claim that they are entitled to carry out street vending, are being prevented from doing so.
4. We have heard Sri. B. Mohan Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. A.R. Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent; and Sri. M.K. Chandramohanan Das, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kottarakkara Municipality.
5. On a perusal of the order dated 31.10.2025 passed in DBP No. 49 of 2025, we find that this Court had only recorded the submissions of the local authority that they are initiating steps to remove the illegal street vendors and observed that no further orders were required to be passed in the matter in the light of the said assertion. Liberty was, however, granted to the complainant therein to raise his grievance before the competent local authority as and when unauthorised vendors set up shops or obstruct the passage of devotees i n future.
6. We clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the rights of the parties in the Writ Petition pending before t his Court. It is further made clear that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 43641 of 2025 will govern the issues involved therein, as well as the rights and obligations of the parties to that proceeding.
This Review Petition is accordingly disposed of.
