Case Law
2025-11-22
Subject: Constitutional Law - Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014
Thiruvananthapuram, India – The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has clarified that the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, does not apply to Grama Panchayats. The court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., held that a Grama Panchayat does not fall under the definition of a 'Local Authority' as specified in Section 2(1)(c) of the central legislation, which is intended for urban local bodies.
The decision came while disposing of a writ petition filed by Mr. Musthaffa K., a 68-year-old street vendor, who sought legal protection to continue his trade near the Thamarassery Civil Station in Kozhikode.
Mr. Musthaffa K. approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Thamarassery Grama Panchayath to issue him a certificate of vending under the 2014 Act. He argued that the Panchayat was obligated to implement the Act and its associated schemes, which are designed to protect the livelihoods of street vendors and regulate their activities. The petitioner requested permission to conduct his business without causing a nuisance to the public or traffic.
Petitioner's Stance: The counsel for Mr. Musthaffa argued that the definition of 'Local Authority' in the Act is inclusive and could encompass a "planning authority" that regulates land use, thereby bringing the Grama Panchayat within its purview. The argument leaned on a broader interpretation of the Act's protective mandate.
Respondents' Rebuttal: The Thamarassery Grama Panchayath and the State of Kerala strongly contested the petition's maintainability. Their primary contention was that the Street Vendors Act, 2014, is explicitly applicable to urban areas, and a Grama Panchayat does not meet the statutory definition of a 'Local Authority' under Section 2(1)(c).
The Panchayat further alleged that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon National Highway 766 in a busy commercial area, causing significant traffic congestion and obstruction to pedestrians. They submitted photographs and official records showing their decision to remove the unauthorized structure.
The High Court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the term 'Local Authority' and the established legal precedent. The court referred to its earlier judgment in Sajjad and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2018 KHC 804] , which had previously settled the same question.
In its judgment, the court observed: > "Since there is no dispute that the area in question is a Grama Panchayat, as held by this Court in Sajjad (supra) it does not fulfil the definition of a 'Local Authority' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Street Vendors Act, inasmuch as it is not a local authority functioning in an urban area. The petitioner has to fall within the ambit of the Act to get any protection under the Act."
The court concluded that since the foundational premise of the petitioner's claim—the applicability of the Act—was incorrect, the prayers seeking a vending certificate under the said Act could not be granted.
While dismissing the petitioner's primary claims, the court offered a potential avenue for relief. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. directed that if Mr. Musthaffa submits a fresh application to the Thamarassery Grama Panchayath for conducting his trade in a mobile cart "without obstructing the traffic or pedestrians," the Panchayat must consider it in accordance with the law and take an appropriate decision.
This ruling solidifies the jurisdictional boundaries of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, in Kerala, confirming that its protective framework is limited to municipalities and corporations, leaving street vendors in rural panchayat areas outside its direct scope. Any regulation or licensing for vendors in such areas would be governed by the specific bye-laws of the concerned Grama Panchayat.
#StreetVendorsAct #KeralaHighCourt #GramaPanchayat
Family Judge Exposes Weaponized Litigation in Custody Dispute
14 Feb 2026
Centre Notifies Two High Court Chief Justice Appointments
16 Feb 2026
Deep Chandra Joshi Appointed Acting NCLT President
16 Feb 2026
Debunking the Myth That Indians Lack Privacy Concepts
16 Feb 2026
Whose View Is It Anyway? Juniors Uncredited
16 Feb 2026
Private Property Disputes Not Human Rights Violations; HRC Lacks Jurisdiction Under PHRA: Gujarat HC
16 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Stay on RTI Data Amendments
16 Feb 2026
DIFC Court: Strong Reasons Required to Block Arbitration
17 Feb 2026
Bar Leaders Oppose High Courts Saturday Sittings
17 Feb 2026
The classification of land as 'Rasta' falls under the definition of 'public premises' in the eviction statute, thus the eviction proceedings initiated against unauthorized occupants are legally valid....
Cancellation of bail requires cogent circumstances; mere allegations of misconduct are insufficient without evidence of misuse or supervening circumstances.
Financial companies must seek relief through legal channels when police seize pledged items under allegations of theft, ensuring adherence to established guidelines and protocols.
Right to exemption from personal appearance in trials for handicapped individuals was upheld by the court.
The disposal of seized property without notice and due process violates constitutional rights, rendering such actions illegal and unconstitutional.
A petitioner challenging eviction from government land must substantiate claims against authority actions and show violations of due process to avoid eviction.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.