Power Granted Under Street Vendor's Act Overrides Municipality Act Even If Vendor Is Operating Without License: Kerala High Court

Justice Mohammed Nias C P held that any municipal action against a street vendor, even one operating without a license, must conform to the procedural safeguards under the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, framed under Section 38 of the 2014 Act.

The court was considering a petition filed by a fishmonger against the seizure of his cart, by the Chavakkad Municipality following a complaint of obstruction. It is stated that the Municipality, assisted by police, has seized a four wheel cart, along with approximately 82 kilograms of fish, and two electronic weighing scales. The fish was destroyed on site and the remaining articles were kept in the custody of the 2 nd respondent, Secretary, Chavakkad Municipality.

The petitioner contended that he is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to livelihood and arbitrary seizure is without due process of law and violates fundamental rights.

It was further contended by the petitioner that the actions of the Municipality were in violation of Section 18 of the Street Vendors Act. It was argued that clause 16 of the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme which operationalised Street Vendors Act, was not followed by the respondents. According to Clause 16, any seizure of goods must be accompanied by a detailed inventory prepared at the time of seizure, and the vendor must be given the right and opportunity to reclaim the seized articles within a specified time, and that perishable items, unless certified as noxious or harmful, are required to be preserved for at least 24 hours, thereby ensuring an opportunity for retrieval.

The respondents relied on Sections 476 to 482 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which empower municipal officials to inspect and seize articles considered unfit for human use and to regulate obstructions on public streets. The Municipality claimed its seizure and destruction of 82 kilograms of fish from the petitioner's vending cart were lawful exercises of these powers.

The respondents further contended that the petitioner is not a registered street vendor under the Town Vending Scheme, hence cannot claim protection under the Street Vendors Act or Scheme.

The Court examined Clause 16 of the 2019 Scheme, and noted that the Municipality had to conform to the procedure even if the petitions did not have the trade license or vending certificate.

“ 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 noted.

The Court further noted that the powers of the Municipality under Sections 476 to 482 cannot be construed as the power to commit high handed acts as in the present case, holding that the Clause 16 of the Scheme overrides powers granted under the Municipality Act.

“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 noted.

The Court further observed that the action of the Municipality amounts to denial of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“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.” the Court observed.

The Court has also directed the Respondent Municipality to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the value of the fish illegally destroyed and has further directed the return of the cart and the weighing scales.

“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” it further observed.

The Court thus allowed the petition.

Case Title: Nisham v Chavakkad Municipality and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 27916/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 667

Counsel for Petitioner: Mohammed Ashraf

Counsel for Respondent: V N Haridas, Surya Binoy (Sr. GP)