Street Vendors Act Overrides Municipality Powers Even For Unlicensed Vendors: Kerala High Court
Justice Mohammed Nias CP, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the powers conferred under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 take precedence over those granted under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, even when a street vendor operates without a trade license.
A Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. clarified that any municipal action against a street vendor must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards laid down in the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, which was framed under Section 38 of the 2014 Act.
Background
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a fishmonger challenging the seizure of his vending cart by the Chavakkad Municipality. The seizure had taken place after a complaint alleging obstruction was lodged against the petitioner. The Municipality, assisted by the local police, had confiscated a four-wheeled vending cart, about 82 kilograms of fish, and two electronic weighing scales. The fish was reportedly destroyed on site, while the cart and weighing machines were kept in the custody of the Secretary, Chavakkad Municipality (the second respondent).
The petitioner argued that the Municipality’s actions were arbitrary and unlawful, violating his fundamental right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the seizure was conducted without due process of law, infringing Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and livelihood.
It was submitted that the Municipality’s conduct violated Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, as well as Clause 16 of the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019.
The petitioner asserted that none of these mandatory safeguards had been followed, rendering the entire seizure and destruction process illegal.
Findings
The Court examined Clause 16 of the 2019 Scheme and observed that even if the petitioner did not possess a trade license or vending certificate, the Municipality was still obligated to follow the prescribed procedure before taking coercive action. The Court remarked, “ Even assuming that the petitioner did not have a trade license as contended by the municipality or was vending without a certificate, the Municipality had to conform to the procedure above referred, which admittedly was not done.”
The Court further clarified that the powers under Sections 476 to 482 of the Kerala Municipality Act could not be interpreted as authorizing arbitrary or high-handed actions such as those committed in the present case. It held that the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, and the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, override the corresponding powers under the Kerala Municipality Act.
The Court stated, “The power granted under the Central statute and the regulations framed therein, particularly Regulation No.16, which deals with the manner and method of eviction of vendors and seizure and disposal of goods, overrides the powers granted to the Municipality under the Municipality Act.”
The Court found that the Municipality’s conduct amounted to a violation of the petitioner’s right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. It condemned the Municipality’s actions in strong terms, observing, “The petitioner, a hapless fishmonger struggling at the margins of existence, was illegally prevented from carrying on his avocation, and his entire stock of fish was destroyed. This constitutes a stark abuse of power, exercised with high-handed arbitrariness, and amounts to nothing less than denial of the right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Holding that the Municipality’s actions were unlawful and oppressive, the Court directed the Chavakkad Municipality to pay the petitioner ₹15,000 as compensation for the value of the fish destroyed. It also ordered the return of the seized cart and weighing scales.
The Court emphasized that when public authorities abuse their powers in such a manner, the law mandates compensation as a remedy, “When the Authority is abused in such an oppressive action against a defenceless citizen, the law mandates a remedy in the form of compensation for the unlawful restraint on his livelihood, and his entire stock of fish was wantonly destroyed. This action is wholly alien to the rule of law and squarely attracts the public law remedy of compensation.”
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the Court reaffirmed that the rights and procedural protections provided under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, and the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, must prevail over municipal powers in all such matters.
Cause Title: Nisham v Chavakkad Municipality & Ors., [2025:KER:74984]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Mohammed Ashraf
Respondents: Advocates V N Haridas, Surya Binoy
