The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that municipal authorities cannot evict street vendors without providing a legally guaranteed alternative relocation, establishing a binding precedent for procedural fairness under urban development schemes. This judgment extends the protection granted in prior writ petitions to a new petitioner, reinforcing the state’s obligation to balance public infrastructure needs with livelihood rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajesh Nishad, operates a fruit and vegetable shop named "Adarsh Fruit Company" at Sanjay Complex, inside Sabji Mandir, Raigarh. He holds a valid business license renewed on 01.10.2025 (Annexure-P/4). On 11.11.2025, Respondent No. 3 - the Municipal Corporation Raigarh - issued an eviction notice (Annexure-P/1), alleging that the petitioner’s shop obstructs public access to a nearby toilet, particularly disadvantaging women users. The petitioner submitted a written response on 19.12.2025 (Annexure-P/2), asserting that his shop does not impede access and that his sole livelihood depends on this location. No response was rendered to his representation.
Key Facts
- The petitioner has been operating at Sanjay Complex since at least 2020, paying regular taxes and occupation charges.
- The Municipal Corporation plans to construct a permanent shopping complex at Sanjay Complex, necessitating relocation of existing vendors.
- The petitioner’s shop is one of several informal vending units operating in the area.
- The petitioner’s income is entirely dependent on this business; no alternative livelihood is available.
- The eviction notice was issued without any prior consultation, notice of hearing, or offer of alternative placement.
Procedural History
- 11.11.2025: Eviction notice issued by Municipal Corporation Raigarh.
- 19.12.2025: Petitioner submitted written reply to eviction notice.
- 28.01.2026: Writ Petition (WPC No. 1037 of 2026) filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
- 18.03.2026: Hearing conducted before Hon’ble Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner’s business is lawful, licensed, and has been operating without objection for years.
- The eviction notice is arbitrary, violates the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and disregards the binding precedent set in WPC No. 1490/2021 and WPC No. 678/2013.
- The petitioner seeks protection from eviction until a lawful alternative site is provided.
- Reliance is placed on the affidavit dated 09.12.2020 by the Municipal Commissioner, wherein it was assured that vendors would be resettled either at the same location post-construction or at an alternative site.
For the Respondents
- Respondent No. 3 (Municipal Corporation) does not oppose the petitioner’s request if the matter is disposed of in accordance with the earlier judgments.
- Respondents No. 1 and 2 (State and Collector) do not contest the petitioner’s claim.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Quashing of the eviction notice dated 11.11.2025.
- Direction to the Municipal Corporation to address his grievance as per the relief granted in WPC No. 1490/2021.
- Inclusion in the resettlement scheme applicable to similarly situated vendors.
- Stay on any coercive action pending resolution.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether municipal authorities may evict a licensed street vendor without providing a lawful alternative relocation site, in light of binding judicial precedents and statutory obligations under the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on WPC No. 1490/2021 and WPC No. 678/2013, where the Court had held that vendors cannot be evicted without due process. The Municipal Commissioner’s affidavit dated 09.12.2020 constituted a binding assurance that vendors would be resettled either at the same site after construction or at an alternative location. The petitioner argued that his case is identical in facts and legal posture to those earlier petitioners, and therefore entitled to the same relief. He further contended that eviction without relocation violates Article 21 (right to livelihood) and the procedural safeguards under Section 16 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, which mandates notice, consultation with the Town Vending Committee, and provision of alternative space.
For the Respondent
The Municipal Corporation, through its senior counsel, did not dispute the petitioner’s entitlement to relief. It expressly agreed that the petitioner’s case is governed by the judgments in WPC No. 1490/2021 and WPC No. 678/2013, and that the terms of those orders should apply mutatis mutandis. No counter-argument was advanced against the petitioner’s claim.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comparative analysis of the facts in the present petition and those in the two prior judgments. It noted that the petitioner’s business, location, and the nature of the proposed redevelopment are indistinguishable from those in WPC No. 1490/2021. The Court emphasized that the Municipal Commissioner’s affidavit dated 09.12.2020 was not a mere policy statement but a formal undertaking made before the Court, which created a legitimate expectation enforceable under administrative law.
"The petitioners have interim order in their favour in operation since 2013 itself along with other bunch of writ petitions. Pending the writ petition, the respondent Municipal Corporation through an affidavit by the Municipal Commissioner, Raigarh on 09.12.2020 has given assurance that petitioners who would be evicted from the site where the Sanjay Complex is proposed would be given a shop after it is constructed and ready to allot subject to the petitioners accepting the payment of rent and other payable dues for the said shop."
The Court held that the eviction notice dated 11.11.2025, issued without reference to the Town Vending Committee or any offer of alternative space, is procedurally flawed and violates the principles laid down in WPC No. 678/2013. The Court further observed that the petitioner’s reliance on the earlier judgments is not merely persuasive but binding under the doctrine of stare decisis and the principle of equal treatment under Article 14.
The Court also noted that the petitioner’s livelihood is at stake, and any abrupt eviction without relocation would amount to arbitrary deprivation of livelihood, contrary to the spirit of the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The Court rejected the notion that the vendor’s location being near a public toilet justifies eviction without due process, holding that such concerns must be addressed through redesign or regulation, not displacement.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the orders dated 16.03.2021 in WPC No. 1490/2021 and 27.01.2021 in WPC No. 678/2013. Respondent No. 3 is directed to redress the petitioner’s grievance by providing an alternative vending site in accordance with the conditions outlined in those judgments. Until such relocation is effected, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the eviction notice dated 11.11.2025. The Municipal Corporation is further directed to ensure the construction of the Sanjay Complex shopping complex is completed at the earliest, and that the petitioner is allotted a shop therein upon completion, subject to payment of rent and dues as prescribed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Eviction Without Relocation Is Unlawful
- Practitioners must now argue that any eviction of street vendors without prior offer of alternative space violates Section 16 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 and the binding precedents of this Court.
- Municipal corporations cannot rely on vague public interest claims to justify displacement without due process.
- Affidavits made by municipal commissioners before courts constitute enforceable undertakings.
Precedent Binding Across Identical Fact Patterns
- When a court has laid down a legal framework for vendor resettlement in one case, identical cases must be treated uniformly under Article 14.
- Lawyers representing vendors should cite WPC No. 678/2013 and WPC No. 1490/2021 as controlling authority in any eviction dispute involving Sanjay Complex or similar municipal redevelopment projects.
- The Court’s directive to consider alternative sites proposed by vendors creates a new procedural avenue for advocacy.
Municipal Corporations Must Formally Engage Town Vending Committees
- The judgment implicitly reinforces that the Town Vending Committee must be consulted before any eviction or relocation.
- Failure to constitute or consult the Committee renders any eviction order voidable.
- Practitioners should demand production of Committee meeting records and recommendations in all pending eviction cases.
