Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Discriminatory Action and Violation of Rights - The eviction of the street vendor was found to be discriminatory, with the municipality selectively targeting the vendor while allowing others to continue vending at the same location. This infringes on constitutional rights to equality and life. The Commission emphasized that such pick-and-choose policies are unlawful and violate vendor rights ["Kottayam Municipality VS Chairperson, The Kerala State Human Rights Commission - Kerala"], ["GEROGE K.O vs SECRETRARY TO GOVERNMENT - Kerala"], ["KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY vs THE CHAIRPERSON - Kerala"].
Entitlement Under the Street Vendors Act, 2014 - The vendor is protected under the Act, which mandates proper procedures before eviction or relocation, including issuing notices and conducting surveys to identify eligible vendors. Vendors with identity cards and licenses are entitled to protection and proper rehabilitation ["GEROGE K.O vs SECRETRARY TO GOVERNMENT - Kerala"], ["GEROGE K.O Versus SECRETRARY TO GOVERNMENT - Kerala"], ["S.Ravinder vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["S.Ravinder vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Mariyammal .M vs The Inspector of General of - Madras"].
Procedure for Eviction and Relocation - The law requires that vendors be served with a written notice at least 30 days prior to eviction or relocation, and no coercive action should be taken without following due process, including proper surveys and issuance of Certificates of Vending. Evictions without adherence to these procedures are unlawful ["Pradeep Mallick vs State of Odisha, Represented through its Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department - Orissa"], ["KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY vs THE CHAIRPERSON - Kerala"], ["Manithaneya Annaithu Varthag vs The District Collector - Madras"], ["RAJU SINGHA and 215 ORS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS - Gauhati"], ["SAHEEDALI O P vs SECRETARY NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY - Kerala"], ["SAHEEDALI O P vs SECRETARY NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY - Kerala"].
Arbitrary and Discriminatory Evictions - Several cases highlight that evicting vendors without following statutory procedures, such as conducting surveys or issuing notices, violates their rights. For instance, evicting vendors based on discriminatory policies or without proper documentation was deemed unlawful ["Kottayam Municipality VS Chairperson, The Kerala State Human Rights Commission - Kerala"], ["KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY vs THE CHAIRPERSON - Kerala"], ["Manithaneya Annaithu Varthag vs The District Collector - Madras"].
Need for Proper Rehabilitation and Compliance - Authorities are mandated to identify vending zones, issue Certificates of Vending, and provide vendors with alternative sites before eviction. Failure to do so renders eviction illegal. The draft byelaws and vending schemes are pending approval, which impacts the legality of current eviction actions ["G.JAGAL KUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Keerti Rajesham VS State of Telangana - Andhra Pradesh"], ["INDKER00000234304"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The provided cases collectively establish that the municipality's action to evict the street vendor fishmonger was unlawful due to non-compliance with statutory procedures under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The eviction was discriminatory, without proper notice, survey, or rehabilitation measures, violating constitutional rights to equality and livelihood. A writ petition challenging such arbitrary eviction should demand that the municipality follow due process, including issuing notices, conducting surveys, and providing alternative vending sites, before any eviction or relocation is undertaken.
Imagine a fishmonger who has been selling fresh fish on a busy pavement for years, providing affordable protein to the local community. Suddenly, municipal authorities swoop in, evict them forcibly, seize goods, and dismantle their setup—all without notice or survey. Is this legal? Can the vendor fight back?
Draft a writ petition challenging the action of a municipality in evicting a street vendor, fishmonger. This common query arises frequently in India, where street vending sustains millions. Generally, such evictions may be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution via a writ petition in the High Court, drawing on fundamental rights and statutory safeguards. This post explores the legal framework, key precedents, a ready-to-adapt draft, and practical tips. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a lawyer for your case.
Street vending, including by fishmongers, is typically protected as a fundamental right to trade or business under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The Supreme Court in Sodan Singh v. NDMC (1989) held: The right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, on street pavements, if properly regulated cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-passing and for no other use. Proper regulation is, however, a necessary condition... Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2013 6 Supreme 577
Public streets vest in the State as a trustee, permitting regulated vending without paralyzing traffic. Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2013 6 Supreme 577 However, there's no absolute right to a specific spot or pavement occupation permanently. Past permissions like tehbazari do not create vested rights, but municipalities must designate vending zones and frame schemes—inaction negates the right. Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2013 6 Supreme 577Sodan Singh VS New Delhi Municipal Committee - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 433
Arbitrary eviction without regulation violates this right. Courts clarify no protection under Article 21 (right to life), but Article 19(1)(g) mandates municipal action. Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2004 1 Supreme 107
The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (SV Act) revolutionized protections. Section 3(3) states: No street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may be, relocated till the survey specified under subsection (1) has been completed and the certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors. Manik Debnath VS State of Tripura - 2015 0 Supreme(Tri) 636
Key mandates:- Survey and Certification: Town Vending Committees must survey existing vendors (especially pre-May 1, 2014) and issue vending certificates before any eviction. Bhaji Pav Thru . Proprietor Satish Nekram Patel VS Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 55Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal VS Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1866- Scheme Requirement: Municipalities must frame vending schemes under Section 38, designating zones. No eviction until compliance. Bhaji Pav Thru . Proprietor Satish Nekram Patel VS Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 55Manik Debnath VS State of Tripura - 2015 0 Supreme(Tri) 636
In a Telangana High Court case, petitioners challenged eviction of stationary vegetable vendors without SV Act procedures: evicting/relocating the petitioner and about 100 similarly placed stationary street vendors... without following the procedure prescribed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014... S.Ravinder vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 59839
Fishmongers selling fresh fish (without cooking) qualify as street vendors. The Act excludes only those engaged in cooking or preparation of food items... Bhaji Pav Thru . Proprietor Satish Nekram Patel VS Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 55Azad Hawkers Union VS Union of India, Through Ministry of HSG & Urban Poverty Alleviation - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1640. A Delhi case affirmed: vendors in shops don't qualify as street vendors unless vending on streets. Arti Rani VS North Delhi Municipal Corporation - 2018 Supreme(Del) 2282
Courts consistently direct status quo until surveys and schemes are complete. Manik Debnath VS State of Tripura - 2015 0 Supreme(Tri) 636E. H. Chen VS State of Meghalaya - 2016 0 Supreme(Megh) 113
Even pre-SV Act, licensees like tehbazari holders under Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act require due process. Section 430(3) mandates termination procedures before eviction: the defendants are restrained permanently from removing the plaintiffs from the suit sites without terminating the Tehbazari permission granted in their favour in accordance with the provisions of S. 430(3) of the DMC Act. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Gurnam Kaur - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 580
No summary eviction without hearing, though no vested right to the exact spot. Sodan Singh VS New Delhi Municipal Committee - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 433Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Gurnam Kaur - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 580
A writ under Article 226 is viable if eviction lacks:- Prior survey and vending certificate (SV Act). Bhaji Pav Thru . Proprietor Satish Nekram Patel VS Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 55- Designated zones or scheme. Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2013 6 Supreme 577- Due process for licensees. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Gurnam Kaur - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 580
Joint petitions are allowed for vendors with common interests. Manik Debnath VS State of Tripura - 2015 0 Supreme(Tri) 636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE AT CITYW.P. (C) No. ___ of 2024
In the matter of:Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaAndStreet Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014
Petitioner's Name, S/o Father, aged Age, R/o Address, a fishmonger vending fresh fish on specific pavement/street under Municipality for X years...Petitioner
Versus1. Municipality/Commissioner, Address2. State of State through Secretary, Urban Development...Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226
FACTS:1. Petitioner vends on location since pre-2014 date, without cooking.2. Evicted on date without survey (S.3 SV Act), certificate (S.4), or scheme (S.38).3. No notice; violates Art 19(1)(g). Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2013 6 Supreme 577
GROUNDS:A. Art 19(1)(g) violation: No scheme/zones. Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2013 6 Supreme 577Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2004 1 Supreme 107B. SV Act breach: Pre-survey eviction barred. Bhaji Pav Thru . Proprietor Satish Nekram Patel VS Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 55Manik Debnath VS State of Tripura - 2015 0 Supreme(Tri) 636C. No due process. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Gurnam Kaur - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 580D. Arbitrary (Art 14).
PRAYERS:a) Quash eviction.b) Direct survey/registration/status quo.c) Restrain future action till scheme.d) Costs/interim relief.
Verification: True.Petitioner/Counsel
Street vending is a lifeline; law balances livelihood with public order. For tailored advice, approach a local advocate. Stay informed, stay protected.
References:1. Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2013 6 Supreme 577: Sodan Singh—core on regulated vending right.2. Bhaji Pav Thru . Proprietor Satish Nekram Patel VS Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 55: SV Act no-eviction rule.3. Manik Debnath VS State of Tripura - 2015 0 Supreme(Tri) 636: Writ against pre-survey eviction.4. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Gurnam Kaur - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 580: Due process for licensees.5. Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai - 2004 1 Supreme 107: Art 19(1)(g) mandate.6. S.Ravinder vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 59839: Telangana vendor eviction challenge.7. Azad Hawkers Union VS Union of India, Through Ministry of HSG & Urban Poverty Alleviation - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1640: Cooking exclusion.
#StreetVendorRights, #WritPetition, #EvictionChallenge
vendor for summarily evicting him and taking away the articles kept for sale. ... We have found that the action of the Municipality and its officers in evicting the 3rd respondent has infringed his rights relating to life and equality guaranteed by the Constitution. ... The Commission found that the action of the Municipality in picking and choosing the 3rd respondent for the purpose of eviction is discriminatory. ... The 3rd respondent alone was evicted by the #HL_ST....
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 would make it necessary that wherever action for relocation or evicting of street vendor is contemplated or evicting street vendor is contemplated under a href="./.. ... The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Municipality not to take any coercive action against ....
action for relocation or evicting of street vendor is contemplated or evicting street vendor is contemplated under Section 18 of the Act, the street vendor shall be served with a notice in writing to vacate the place. ... vendor, who is street vending for more than 12 years at Angamaly within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent-Municipality. ... The writ pet....
of the Police, of the Street Vendor and seize the goods of such Street Vendor by an officer authorized by the Municipality in this behalf and the authorized officer shall make a list of goods so seized in Form-V and obtain signature of the Street Vendor thereon and a copy thereof shall be handed over ... Relocation and Eviction of Street Vendor.- (1) Where the Town Vending Committee recommend to declare a Vending Zone or part of it ....
Therefore, she had preferred this Writ Petition against the Respondents 1 to 5 for taking action against the Sayalgudi Municipality Official- Sekar. 3. ... Accordingly, the said Sekar, Official of the Sayalgudi Municipality had obeyed the Orders of the District Collector in evicting the unauthorized street Vendors. Usually when removal of encroachment is conducted, there will be objections from the street vendors. ... The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehement....
the existing vegetable market and forcibly evicting/relocating the petitioner and about 100 similarly placed stationary street vendors from the municipal site in Manthani town, without following the procedure prescribed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation ... …Respondents ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “…to declare the action of the respondents in demolishing Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5-Municipality p....
the existing vegetable market and forcibly evicting/relocating the petitioner and about 100 similarly placed stationary street vendors from the municipal site in Manthani town, without following the procedure prescribed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation ... …Respondents ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “…to declare the action of the respondents in demolishing Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5-Municipality p....
evicting/relocating the petitioner and about 100 similarly placed stationary street vendors from the municipal site in Manthani town, without following the procedure prescribed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, the Telangana State Street ... …Respondents ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “…to declare the action of the respondents in demolishing the existing vegetable marke....
vendor for summarily evicting him and taking away the articles kept for sale. ... We have found that the action of the Municipality and its officers in evicting the 3rd respondent has infringed his rights relating to life and equality guaranteed by the Constitution. ... The Commission found that the action of the Municipality in picking and choosing the 3rd respondent for the purpose of eviction is discriminatory. ... for any action taken by the Secr....
The draft byelaws of street vending within the Municipality is also pending consideration before the Municipal Council for approval. The Town Vending Plan and draft byelaws are produced as Annexures- R5(c) and R5(d). ... The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the notices, and also declare that they are not liable to be evicted from their present place of street vending and also to restrain the respondents from evicting them. 3. ... The statements made in the stat....
He challenged the order of sanction of prosecution by filing a separate writ petion No.11271/2016.
However, the respondent Corporation did not offer any alternate place to the petitioners in “Happy Street” development project initiated by the respondent Corporation. (3.11) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners thereafter, relied upon clause 15 of the Scheme of 2018 which provides for manner of evicting a street vendor which also requires issuance of one month notice of eviction.
As distinct there from, the petitioner is in a shop. However, when the senior counsel for the petitioner is asked that why does the petitioner not, instead of vending from the shop, vend from the street, to be qualified as street vendor, the same is also not agreeable. A ‘street vendor’ is defined in Section 2(l) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 as a person engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares, food items etc. or offering services to the general public, in a street, lane, side walk, footpath, pavement, publi....
We direct the Municipal Corporation to create a tracking system for all such litigations so that the same are promptly attended to; (vi) We declare that a Street Vendor who is engaged in cooking or preparation of food items in a street, lane, side walk, footpath, pavement, public park or any other public place or private place either from a temporary built structure or by moving from place to place is not covered by the definition of street vendor under clause (1) of Section 2 of the Street Vendors Act and consequently such a vendor shall not be entitled to protection under Sub-sec....
The said scheme as specified in the Second Schedule must provide for the manner of conducting survey, the period within which certificates of vending shall be issued to the street vendors identified under the survey and the terms and conditions thereof. The scheme must also provide for the manner of evicting street vendor, the procedure to be followed for evicting street vendor, form and manner of carrying out social audit as well as the provision for relocation of the street vendors carrying on business in non-vending zones in the vending zones. The scheme must a....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
