The High Court of Kerala has reaffirmed that the right to livelihood of long-standing street vendors cannot be extinguished without a fair, reasoned hearing under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. This judgment underscores that administrative action against informal workers must comply with statutory safeguards and natural justice, not merely respond to temporary public inconvenience.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners are eight long-term street vendors who have operated small businesses - selling fancy items, toy goods, and tea - on the footpath adjacent to the Sree Mahaganapathy Temple in Kottarakkara for over two decades. They assert that their vending does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular access to the temple and that they have consistently maintained their livelihoods without causing public nuisance. Despite their longstanding presence, the Kottarakkara Municipality sought to evict them without initiating any formal process under the 2014 Act.
Procedural History
- 2025: Petitioners filed applications (Exts. P2 to P2(g)) with the Municipality seeking inclusion in the official street vendor registry under Ward No. 15.
- October 2025: The Municipality, citing temple festival congestion, initiated eviction proceedings without hearing the petitioners.
- November 2025: The High Court granted interim status quo, halting evictions.
- October 31, 2025: A Division Bench noted the Municipality’s intent to remove vendors but clarified it had not adjudicated the petitioners’ rights under the 2014 Act.
- December 10, 2025: The Division Bench, in Review Petition No. 1700/2025, explicitly stated that the Single Judge’s order in WP(C) 43641/2025 governs the petitioners’ rights and that no merits were decided in the earlier order.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ directing the respondents to cease eviction, recognize their vending rights under the 2014 Act, and conduct a statutory hearing to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the official vendor list.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a municipal authority may evict long-term street vendors without conducting a hearing or issuing a speaking order under Section 6 and Section 12 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and whether the mere assertion of public inconvenience justifies bypassing statutory procedure.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Section 6 of the 2014 Act, which mandates the constitution of a Town Vending Committee (TVC) to identify and survey vendors. They cited Section 12, requiring a written order with reasons before eviction. They emphasized that their applications (Exts. P2 - P2(g)) were ignored, and their livelihoods were threatened without any opportunity to present evidence of long-term vending or demonstrate non-obstruction. They invoked Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation to affirm that the right to livelihood is integral to Article 21.
For the Respondent
The Municipality contended that the petitioners were unauthorized encroachers obstructing temple access during peak festivals. It relied on the Division Bench’s observation in DBP No. 49/2025 that vendors were causing "serious difficulties" to devotees. It argued that the status quo order was procedural and did not confer substantive rights, and that public order and religious sentiment justified immediate action.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the Municipality’s argument that public inconvenience alone justifies eviction without due process. It emphasized that the 2014 Act was enacted precisely to balance public interest with the right to livelihood of informal workers. The Court held that the Municipality’s failure to consider the petitioners’ applications or issue any reasoned order constituted a violation of natural justice and statutory mandate.
"We clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the rights of the parties in the Writ Petition pending before this Court. It is further made clear that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge... will govern the issues involved therein."
The Court noted that the Division Bench’s earlier order was not a determination of rights but a procedural observation. The Municipality’s reliance on it to justify eviction was legally untenable. The Court held that the Act requires a formal, transparent, and reasoned determination by the Town Vending Committee, not unilateral administrative action. The petitioners’ ration cards (Exts. P1 - P1(g)) established their residence and economic dependence on vending, reinforcing their claim under the Act.
The Court further observed that the absence of a speaking order rendered the proposed eviction arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Municipality’s duty was not to act on transient complaints but to follow the statutory framework designed to protect vulnerable livelihoods.
The Verdict
The petitioners prevailed. The Court held that the Municipality must conduct a fair hearing under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, issue a speaking order on the applications submitted, and determine eligibility based on statutory criteria. The status quo order remains in force for six weeks, and all other contentions are left open.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Hearing Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now insist that municipal authorities comply with Section 12 before any eviction notice is issued.
- Any eviction without a written order citing reasons under the Act is liable to be set aside as arbitrary.
- Applications submitted by vendors must be formally acknowledged and processed by the Town Vending Committee.
Documentary Evidence of Long-Term Presence Is Critical
- Ration cards, local witness affidavits, and tax receipts establishing continuous vending for over 10 years create a strong prima facie claim under the Act.
- Courts will treat long-term vending as evidence of livelihood dependence, triggering statutory protection.
- Municipalities cannot rely on vague assertions of "public nuisance" to override documented economic activity.
Judicial Caution Against Premature Enforcement
- Courts will not permit evictions based on interim observations or unadjudicated administrative assertions.
- Any order referencing "serious difficulties" must be accompanied by a statutory hearing - not used as a pretext for summary action.
- Writ petitions remain viable even after interim status quo orders if substantive rights under the Act are ignored.
