Kerala High Court
Nisham vs Chavakkad Municipality on 9 October, 2025
WP(C) NO. 27916 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:74984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27916 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NISHAM,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O ALI, POKKAKILLATH HOUSE, PALLITHAZHAM,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680506
BY ADV SHRI.MOHAMMED ASHRAF
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHAVAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHAVAKKAD P.O,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680506
2 SECRETARY,
CHAVAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, CHAVAKKAD P.O, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680506
3 PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTOR,
CHAVAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, CHAVAKKAD P.O, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680506
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, CHAVAKKAD P.O,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680506
BY ADV SHRI.V.N.HARIDAS
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. SURYA BINOY, SR. GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27916 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:74984
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be a fishmonger who earns his
livelihood by selling fish using a four-wheel cart at various places
within the 1st respondent Municipality. On 29.09.2024, the 3 rd
respondent conducted an inspection allegedly based on a
complaint received by the 2nd respondent, alleging obstruction
caused to other vendors, vehicles, and pedestrians by the
petitioner's fish vending cart. It is stated that the 2 nd respondent,
with the assistance of the police, seized the petitioner's four-wheel
cart, approximately 82 kilograms of fish, and two electronic
weighing scales, and the fish was destroyed on site, and the
remaining articles were kept in the custody of the 2 nd respondent.
These facts are included in the Ext. P1 Mahazar dated 29.09.2024,
prepared by the Public Health Inspector.
2. On 10.10.2024, the petitioner caused to issue a legal
notice to respondents 2 and 3 demanding the return of the seized
cart and weighing scales. The petitioner also filed Crl.M.P No.7986
of 2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad,
under Section 497 of the Baratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2025:KER:74984
(BNSS), seeking release of the four-wheel cart and electronic
weighing machines seized by the respondents 2 and 3. Through
Ext.P6 order dated 25.06.2025, the Magistrate Court found that the
actions taken by the Municipality were within its powers and that
the seizure was effected by them, and on that basis, the Magistrate
Court dismissed the petition. The 2nd respondent thereafter issued
a notice on 23.01.2025 stating that the petitioner had violated the
law and was not complying with the directions of the Health Squad,
thereby imposing a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only)
as per Ext.P4 notice.
3. The petitioner complains that the act of respondents 1
to 3 in forcibly evicting the petitioner and seizing his cart, fish, and
weighing machines without any notice/without any kind of
hearing, is illegal and in total violation of principles of natural
justice. Petitioner contends that he is a street vendor who is
engaged in a lawful occupation protected under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to livelihood.
The arbitrary seizure mentioned above is without following due
process of law and violates his fundamental rights. The prayer in
the writ petition is to return the petitioner's seized four-wheel cart
2025:KER:74984
and two electronic weighing machines forthwith and also quash
the seizure and destruction as illegal and violative of the Street
Vendors Act, 2014. There is also a prayer to pay a compensation of
Rs 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards the loss caused
due to illegal seizure and destruction of the fish and continued
illegal retention of trade tools.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Mohammed
Ashraf argues that the actions of the Municipality are in violation
of Section 18 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and
Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. Sections 479 and 481 of
the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, permit the destruction of food
items that are proven to be diseased, noxious, or unfit for human
consumption. It is also stated that the actions of the Municipality
are a direct violation of the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019
(hereinafter 2019 Scheme), which operationalises the Street Vendors
(Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act,
2014, and prescribes binding procedural safeguards in cases of
eviction and seizure.
5. Reliance is made on Clause 16 of the Scheme, which
states that any seizure of goods must be accompanied by a detailed
2025:KER:74984
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. All these
provisions of law were flouted by the respondents by their actions
aforesaid.
6. The petitioner further contends that the respondents
failed to prepare any inventory at the time of seizure, failed to
obtain his signature, and destroyed the fish without any sanitary
certification or test to establish that the goods were noxious or
unfit for consumption. Such summary destruction, without
compliance with Regulation 16(2) of the 2019 Scheme or the
conditions of Section 481 of the Municipality Act, is manifestly
arbitrary and illegal. The actions of the respondents deprived the
petitioner of his tools of trade and livelihood, contrary to Articles
14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300-A of the Constitution. He also relies on the
decisions in State of Kerala v. Safia (2021 (5) KHC 199) and D.K.
Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 KHC 245) to contend that illegal
destruction of property by public authorities gives rise to a public
2025:KER:74984
law claim for compensation under Article 226.
7. The learned counsel for the Municipality, Sri. Haridas
argues based on Sections 476 to 482 of the Kerala Municipality Act,
1994, that it fell within their power to seize the fish and
destruction. The Municipality, in its counter affidavit, asserts that
the petitioner was engaged in illegal fish sales without any trade
license or permission and that the place of business was a
prohibited area under the Town Vending Act and Scheme. They
rely on the complaint received on 29.09.2024 and the mahazar
prepared by the Health Department to show that the petitioner
and another person were obstructing the market road, creating a
hindrance to other traders, vehicles, and pedestrians. It is also
stated that the petitioner misbehaved and abused the officials
during the inspection, for which a police complaint was filed. They
contend that action was taken under Sections 470, 470A, 476, 477,
478, 480, and 481 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, and that
the petitioner had earlier been warned and fined but failed to pay
the penalty. The respondents contend that the petitioner is not a
registered street vendor nor authorised under the Town Vending
Scheme, and therefore cannot claim protection under the Street
2025:KER:74984
Vendors Act or Scheme. They further state that the seized fish was
destroyed as it was unsafe and could not be preserved, and that the
actions taken were within their statutory powers.
8. Heard both sides and perused the records.
9. Regulation No. 16 of 2019 Scheme, is extracted below:
"16. Manner and method of eviction of vendors, seizure and
disposal of goods.-
(1) A street vendor, whose Certificate of Vending is cancelled
under section 10 of the Act, or who vends without a certificate of
vending or who vends in a no-vending zone shall be liable to be
evicted immediately from his place of vending and his vending
articles and goods shall be seized by the local authority and kept
in its custody.
(2) The articles and goods of such street vendors shall be seized
under a proper inventory and the signature of the street vendor
concerned shall be obtained in the same. Where the vendor
refuses to sign the inventory, the Health Officer or Health
Supervisor or Health Inspector of the local authority concerned
shall attest the inventory in addition to the attestation by the
officials seizing the articles.
(3) Where a vendor does not apply for the return of the articles
and the goods seized by the local authority after the expiry of 24
hours, in case of perishable goods and after the expiry of fifteen
days, in case of non-perishable goods, the local authority shall
dispose of the same by a public auction. The proceeds of such
auction shall be adjusted towards the charges and penalties, if
any, that are payable by the vendor under the rules or the
scheme and the cost incurred for conducting the auction. The
balance, if any, shall be kept in a separate account and paid to
the street vendor on his application.
2025:KER:74984
(4) If a vendor or his legal heirs fail to claim the balance amount
under sub-paragraph (3), within a period of three months, the
same shall be forfeited by the local authority and deposited in
its general account.
(5) Wherever action for relocation or evicting of street vendor is
contemplated or evicting street vendor is contemplated under
section 18 of the Act, the street vendor shall be served with a
notice in writing to vacate the place:
(a) Served with a notice in case he is to be relocated due to
exigencies of public purpose;
(b) Temporarily, in case his certificate of vending has been
suspended,
(c) Permanently, in case his certificate of vending has been
cancelled by the town vending committee;
(d) In case the vendor is vending without obtaining a vending
certificate.
(6) The notice under sub-action (3) of section 18 of the Act shall
be served by the local authority asking the vendor to vacate the
place/space within thirty days.
(7) Where the vendor fails to vacate the place/space area within
the period specified in the notice, the local authority shall evict
him physically by its staff and if necessary with the assistance
of police and goods and material found with him at the place
shall be seized.
In the initial phase where the street vendors are located without
any authority; the local authority can relocate the vendor
considering the width of the street, traffic, volume of the street,
presence of important institution like hospital, court, Govt. office
etc. at a suitable place, identified by the local authority."
2025:KER:74984
10. 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.
11. The power to destroy the articles under Section 481
is only for those items prescribed in Section 479. That apart,
Sections 476 and 477 only enable the Secretary to inspect for the
purpose stated in Section 477, and the protection given there is
only for those acts mentioned therein and cannot be construed as
the power to commit high-handed acts as has been done in the
instant case. This is a total violation of the provisions of the 2019
Scheme, which was framed in exercise of the powers conferred
under Section 38 of the Street Vendors Act. At any rate, 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, even in cases where it is applicable,
more so, in a case where, the actions of the Municipality cannot be
sustained even under the provisions of the Municipality Act. The
2025:KER:74984
Mahazar reveals the reason for the seizure and the quantity of fish
seized.
12. 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. 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. The petitioner is thus entitled to just
recompense for the injury inflicted by such oppressive exercise of
power violating his fundamental rights.
13. Given the above, I am inclined to allow the writ
petition, and it is declared that the entire actions of the
Municipality leading to Ext.P4 are high-handed, unjust, and unfair
trampling upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to the
2025:KER:74984
petitioner. Under such circumstances, there will be a direction to
the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 15,000/-
(Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards the value of the fish
illegally destroyed and also to return the cart and the two
electronic weighing scales forthwith. There will be a further
direction to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand
only) as compensation to the petitioner for the high-handed acts of
respondents 2 and 3. The Municipality shall pay the amount within
a month and recover the same from those found responsible.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
Anu
2025:KER:74984
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27916/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED
29.09.2024 ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATED
COPY
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND AND 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.P. NO.
7986/2024 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM,
CHAVAKKAD
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
23/01/2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP
7986/2024 OF THE HON'BLE JFCM,
CHAVAKKAD
