1. Encroachment on private verandah and public footpath obstructing ingress, egress, and pedestrian movement. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Jalaja.M – Appellant
Versus
District Police Chief – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 29580 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.K. Vipindas, Varun S.
For the Respondents: M. Sasindran, P Abdul Nishad P
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.K. Vipindas, Varun S.
For the Respondents: M. Sasindran, P Abdul Nishad P
The right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Art. 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which takes priority over street vending; however, authorities must balance this by earmarking specific zones to protect vendors' livelihoods.
Headnote:(A) Fundamental Rights - Right to Walk - The right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, integral to the right of movement guaranteed under Art.19(1)(d) read with Art.21. Such rights have priority over movement by motorised vehicles and the occupation of footpaths by street vendors. (Para 7)
(B) Municipal Governance - Footpath Encroachments - While the economic vulnerability and livelihood of street vendors must be recognized, it cannot justify the obstruction of public footpaths which forces pedestrians onto busy roads. Municipalities and police have a statutory duty to ensure free movement on pathways by earmarking specific vending zones. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the obstruction of a private verandah and public footpath by street vendors violates the proprietary rights of the owner and the fundamental right to walk of the general public.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed illegal occupation and obstruction of shops; respondent refused notice and did not contest. (Para 3 )
3. Footpaths are for pedestrians; street vendors cannot encroach; right to walk is a fundamental right. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. The right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. (Para 7 )
5. Is the right to walk on a footpath a fundamental right?
Yes, the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) read with Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 7 )
6. Can street vendors occupy footpaths for business?
No, footpaths are for pedestrians. Street vendors cannot encroach on them, but authorities should earmark alternative vending areas. (Para 6 , 7 )
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner against obstructing ingress and egress to the petitioner’s shops bearing door Nos. 19/1271, 19/1272, 19/1273, 19/1275, 19/1278, 19/1279, 19/1305, 19/1307, 19/1308, 19/1309, 19/1310, 19/1311 from 4th respondent or any such persons.
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the respondents to remove the illegal obstruction/encroachment from the verandah of the petitioner’s shops bearing door Nos. 19/1271, 19/1272, 19/1273, 19/1275, 19/1278, 19/1279, 19/1305, 19/1307, 19/1308, 19/1309, 19/1310, 19/1311 and from the adjoining area, in accordance with law.
iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the respondents to ensure that the trespassers do not re- enter or obstruct the petitioner’s property or cause further nuisance, intimidation, or damage.
iv. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the concerned local authority, including the 5th respondent, to inspect the site and take lawful action regarding any unauthorised occupation or obstruction on the public footpath, after following due process.
v. To dispense with filing of the translation of Vernacular Documents.
vi. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”
[SIC]
2. This writ petition is filed to resolve an individual problem faced by a building owner in Payyanur town, which is situated in Kannur District and also the general problem faced by the pedestrians and shop owners of the said Town. The petitioner is one of the co-owners of buildings known as R.K. Complex and KMK Complex situated near the Old Bus Stand, Payyannur, Kannur District. The Petitioner and her two sisters are the co-owners of the said properties. The Petitioner and her family are residing away from Payyannur and are not in continuous physical occupation of the premises, is the submission. The buildings and adjoining verandah are private property and form part of the petitioner's commercial premises, is the submission. The property also abuts a public footpath used by the public for access to the bus stand area, is the further submission. The public footpath and the verandah of the petitioner’s property lie contiguously, such that any obstruction in the verandah would hinder the movement of the public using the footpath.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, certain persons, including 4th respondent have illegally and without authority entered upon and occupied the verandah area adjoining the petitioner’s shops bearing door Nos.19/1271, 19/1272, 19/1273, 19/1275, 19/1278, 19/1279, 19/1305, 19/1307, 19/1308, 19/1309, 19/1310, 19/1311. The petitioner states that the 4th respondent has been using the verandah and the adjoining space on the public footpath for business activity and to store bags, cartons, and other materials, thereby obstructing ingress and egress to the petitioner's shops and interfering with the petitioner's proprietary rights. The petitioner also alleges that the 4th respondent is using a QR code belonging to another person to carry on his activities, though he has not fully disclosed the details. It is further submitted that the illegal obstruction has continued for several months and has caused serious hardship, loss of tenants, loss of income, and damage to the petitioner’s reputation as a shop owner. It is submitted that the obstruction has become so serious, and the members of the Payyannur Chamber of Commerce also visited the site and requested the 4th respondent to remove his materials, but he disregarded the same. When the petitioner objected to this unlawful conduct, the 4th respondent threatened her with danger to life and property. Therefore, the petitioner submitte
