Court emphasized the protection of street vendors' rights under relevant legislation, mandating authority to consider their claims before eviction.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners claimed to be street vendors selling fancy items, toy items and petty tea shops in the footpath outside the area of Sree Mahaganapathy Temple, Kottarakkara, in Kollam District for the last 20 years. They contended that they were not causing a nuisance to the pedestrians, vehicular traffic on the PWD road having access to the temple. They claimed that they are entitled to be included in the list of street vendors in Ward No.15 of Kottarakkara Municipality.

2. The petitioners, accordingly, seek a direction against the respondents not to evict them as they are under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act , 2014 and the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme , 2019.

3. This Court had passed an interim order of status quo on 20.11.2025, which is still in force. The local authority has filed a statement inter alia producing an order of the learned Division Bench of this Court in DBP No.49/2025 dated 31.10.2025 wherein the statement of the local authority that serious difficulties have been faced by the devotees coming to the Sree Mahaganapathy Temple, Kottarakkara during festival season was noticed and that the local authority had contemplated actions to evict the unauthorized vendors, who had set up shops or by obstructing the passage of devotees, were recorded.

4. Though an order of status quo was passed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, taking advantage of the order passed in DBP No.49/2025, the petitioners were sought to be evicted, which forced them to file a review before the learned Division Bench as RP No.1700/2025, which was disposed of on 10.12.2025 as follows:

“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 in 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 this 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. ”

5. As stated by the learned Division Bench, the rights of the petitioners under the provisions of the Street Vending Act have not considered by the Municipality so far.

6. In view of the above, there will be a direction to the 6^th respondent to consider Exts.P2 to P2(g) preferred by the petitioners with notice to the petitioners and other affected parties, if any. The Municipality shall pass a speaking order on the contentions raised by the petitioners in the above representations, in accordance with law. Orders as directed above shall be passed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed as directed above, the order of status quo granted by this Court shall continue to remain in operation. All the contentions of the parties in the writ petition are left open.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.