Kerala High Court Stays Eviction of Street Vendors in Chalakudy, Upholds Right to Livelihood

Case Overview

In a significant ruling on December 11, 2025, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and P. V. Balakrishnan, granted interim protection to a group of street vendors in Chalakudy Municipality. The decision came in Writ Appeal No. 3025 of 2025, challenging an interim order dated November 17, 2025, in I.A. No. 1/2025 within W.P.(C) No. 41402 of 2025.

The appellants—Cleatus (aged 56), Rahman (35), Rasheed (43), K.V. Joy (46), and K.V. Thomas (53), all residents of Chalakudy and nearby areas—are small-scale vendors operating in the Chalakudy Municipality Market. They depend on these stalls for their sole source of livelihood. The primary respondents include the State of Kerala (through its Secretary, Local Self Government Department), Chalakudy Municipality (represented by its Secretary), and an additional respondent, Lilly Varghese (impleaded on November 17, 2025).

The core legal issue revolves around the balance between municipal authority to regulate public spaces and the fundamental right to livelihood of marginalized vendors, protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The vendors filed the writ petition seeking to quash a notice (Ext. P5) dated October 23, 2025, issued by the Municipality, which directed them to vacate their current locations and temporarily shift to designated stalls (No. 16) within seven days.

Background and Timeline

The conflict escalated when the Municipality, on December 10, 2025, attempted to forcibly evict the vendors with police assistance. This prompted the urgent writ petition, highlighting the vendors' vulnerability as "poor street vendors with no other source of livelihood." The Single Judge Bench had earlier declined interim relief on November 17, 2025, posting the matter for further hearing after allowing time for the respondents to obtain instructions. The Division Bench, hearing the intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, intervened to prevent immediate hardship.

Arguments from Both Sides

The appellants, represented by advocate N.L. Bitto, argued that the eviction notice violated their right to livelihood and ignored procedural fairness. They emphasized that the Single Judge erred in not staying the notice, which would render their challenge moot. Referencing W.P.(C) No. 27916/2025 ( Nisham v. Chavakkad Municipality and others ), they contended that such municipal actions must align with principles protecting informal sector workers, as arbitrary evictions defeat constitutional safeguards.

Opposing counsel for the respondents, including Government Pleader Sheejo Chacko and Senior Government Pleader Harish K.P., maintained that the Single Judge's order was justified. They noted that interim time had been granted for instructions, and no emergent coercion was underway at the appeal stage. The Municipality defended its actions as necessary for regulating public spaces and relocating vendors to a structured area, denying any intent to deprive livelihoods.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The Bench drew on the precedent in Nisham v. Chavakkad Municipality to underscore that municipal powers over street vending must not undermine vendors' rights under Article 21. While the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, provides a framework for regulated vending zones, the court distinguished this case by focusing on the need for objective reconsideration rather than outright quashing. The ruling emphasized procedural equity: vendors must be heard before relocation, aligning with natural justice principles in administrative actions.

Key excerpt from the judgment: "Having considered the fact that the appellants are poor street vendors with no other source of livelihood, it would be appropriate... to afford them an opportunity to reply to the notice in Ext.P5. Upon consideration of their response, the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh orders."

Another pivotal line: "We direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the appellants until the next date of hearing of the writ petition."

Court's Decision and Implications

Modifying the Single Judge's order, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal by granting 10 days for the vendors to file objections to the October 23, 2025, notice with the Municipality. The respondents were directed to consider these replies "objectively" and issue a "reasoned and speaking order" thereafter. No coercive actions, such as eviction or police intervention, are permitted until the writ petition's next hearing.

This interim relief safeguards the vendors' operations, preventing economic disruption during the festive season and beyond. For legal professionals, it reinforces the judiciary's role in mediating administrative overreach against informal economies. Broader implications include stronger calls for municipalities to implement the 2014 Street Vendors Act more inclusively, ensuring consultations with affected parties. The case returns to the Single Judge for substantive hearing, potentially setting a template for similar disputes in Kerala.

The judgment balances urban planning needs with social justice, affirming that livelihood rights cannot be summarily overridden.