Lokanath Sahoo State of Odisha and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 35455 of 2022 Lokanath Sahoo State of Odisha and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA Mr. B. Dash, Adv.[O.P.No.2 to 4] Order No. 02. CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 12.02.2024 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties; and Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation authorities not to close the vending unit of the petitioner carried at Bharatpur main road without following due procedure of law and allow him to continue his vending unit, as per permission granted by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation to the petitioner as a Street Vendor. 4. Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is carrying on his small business dealing in grocery shop at Bharatpur road under Ward No.22 of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation for more than 10 years. As such, his business unit has not in any way affected the movement of general public or traffic movement on the road, as his shop is situated far from the existing road. The Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, after due enquiry, identified the petitioner as a street vendor, issued identity card under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Page 1 of 4 Vending) Act, 2014 and permitted the petitioner to continue the small vending business at Bharatpur by the side of Main Road from Kalinga Studio Chhak to Chandaka. It is submitted the petitioner is also paying the administrative charges for littering/throwing, disposal of solid waste on streets to the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and, as such, the petitioner is continuing his street vending business in accordance with the Street Vending Act, 2014 and has followed the procedure and instructions of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. As such, the petitioner has availed electricity supply to his small shop business unit and is regularly paying the electricity charges and carrying his business without affecting the public life. It is submitted now steps have been taken by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation for closing down the shop, which will affect his right to life, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is contended that before closing down the same, at least the petitioner be relocated and, as such, eviction should be done by following due procedure, as envisaged under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and the same having not been adhered to, the action of the authority is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that since the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land, which belonged to Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and, as such, the Municipal authority granted the license, if at all any dispute arises between the petitioner vis-à-vis BMC, the State would not have any role to play. 6. Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Page 2 of 4 Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation vehemently contended that due to unauthorized occupation of the land by the street vendors, obstruction on the road has been caused and, therefore, in the interest of public at large, steps have been taken for eviction of the petitioner from the vending zone, to which license has also been granted by the BMC. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in taking steps for eviction of the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that there is no dispute before us to the extent that the petitioner is carrying on business as a street vendor having vending license granted by the competent authority. The contention of the opposite party-BMC that the continuance of the petitioner, by encroaching upon the Government land, is causing difficulties to local public, has not yet been refuted. But the fact remains, if the petitioner is carrying on business, as per the license granted by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, for his eviction, the authority has to take steps as per the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which reads as under:- “18. Payment of maintenance charges: 1. The local authority may, on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, declare a zone or part of it to be a no-vending zone for any public purpose and relocate the street vendors vending in that area, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme. 2. The local authority shall evict such street vendor whose certificate of vending has been cancelled under section 10 or who does not have a certificate of vending and vends without such certificate, in such manner as may be specified in the scheme. 3. No street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority from the place specified in the Page 3 of 4 certificate of vending unless he has been given thirty days’ notice for the same in such manner as may be specified in the scheme. 4. A street vendor shall be relocated or evicted by the local authority physically in such manner as may be specified in the scheme only after he had failed to vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice. 5. Every street vendor who fails to relocate or vacate the place specified in the certificate of vending, after the expiry of the period specified in the notice, shall be liable to pay for every day of such default, a penalty which may extend up to two hundred and fifty rupees, as may be determined by the local authority, but shall not be more than the value of goods seized.” 8. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is made clear that if the authority wants to evict the petitioner, steps should be taken by giving due notice. The same having not been taken in the present case, any action taken by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. However, it is open to the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation to take necessary steps in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and do the needful by following due procedure of law. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 13-Feb-2024 16:32:01 Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. SAHOO) JUDGE Page 4 of 4