Back
Street Vendors Act Protects , Not :
In a significant ruling that clarifies the limits of the Street Vendors Act, the has held that the legislation protects only activities and cannot be used to shield that encroach upon . The judgment came on a writ petition filed by the challenging an issued by the .
The Dispute
The petitioners, representing three registered hawkers' unions, claimed that their members had been carrying on vending and hawking activities along Dhapa Road and adjoining localities within KMC jurisdiction for years. They contended that vending constituted their sole source of livelihood and was protected under , as well as .
The hawkers were aggrieved by a public dated , pasted on their shop walls, signed by the Executive Engineer (C), Borough VII, KMC. They argued that the notice was issued despite the area not being properly notified as a , pointing to minutes of the 29th meeting of the , which acknowledged that no proper notification existed.
KMC's Response
Opposing the petition, , appearing for the KMC, placed before the Court a detailed report along with photographs. The report revealed that the had lodged a complaint about permanent and temporary structures obstructing movement on an existing KMC footpath. A subsequent drive confirmed that shops and other structures had been unauthorizedly erected in violation of . The KMC had accordingly served notice under , granting 15 days to relocate.
"Municipal authorities are not targeting
,"
the KMC argued,
"but are acting against encroachments in the form of structures with permanency."
Court's Analysis
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, hearing the case, noted that although the petitioners described themselves as street vendors, nothing had been placed before the Court to show that they were authorized street vendors or hawkers. Examining the KMC's material, the Court observed that the municipal action was directed at removing structures that had "."
The Court then delivered its key holding:
" , does not protect . The petitioners cannot take shelter of the same to protect unauthorized construction and ."
Further clarifying the scope of the Act, the Court stated:
"What is protected under the said , is the right to carry on vending activities that too in a , and the in certain cases."
A Concession for
While dismissing the petition, the Court recorded a significant concession from the KMC. The Additional Advocate General clarified that for vending carts which were not presently movable, additional time would be provided to vendors to make them movable in accordance with the Act. The Court directed that if vendors took appropriate steps within that period, the August 3 notice would not be implemented against them.
Implications
The judgment firmly establishes that the Street Vendors Act is not a blanket immunity against municipal action for unauthorized constructions. It reinforces the distinction between activities — which deserve protection — and on public spaces, which remain subject to removal. For municipal corporations across the state, this ruling provides clarity in dealing with unauthorized structures while balancing the rights of genuine street vendors.
The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
